[ Page 9803 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

L. Reid: I have a plethora of introductions. There are some very, very fine individuals visiting the Legislature today. Visiting from Kelowna are Les and Nellie Marsden. They are joined by Joan Douglas, who is visiting from Yorkshire, England. In addition, Nancy Wooldridge, the president of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, is here. She has come to urge the Attorney General to move more quickly with Bill 25. And indeed, "Red" and his wife are in the gallery. "Red," as all of you know, has cared for each and every one of us over the last number of years. I would ask the House to make each of them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I'd like to introduce to the House a very good friend of mine who lives in New Westminster and works in my constituency office in Mission: my executive assistant Steve McClurg. Would the House please make him welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon is my daughter Barbara Armstrong from Burnaby, who is on her first visit to the Legislature here in Victoria. With her is her first child Scott Randall Armstrong, who is five months old. Also in the gallery with Barb is my wife Aileen Randall, who is spending money like a typical grandmother. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

FRBC HIRING OF MLA'S CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANT

My question to the Minister of Forests is: can he tell us why FRBC would hire a disgraced NDP constituency assistant only weeks after he'd supposedly been fired for unethical behaviour?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I suspect that there are an awful lot of wrong assumptions in that. I learned about this about 1 o'clock this morning. I began inquiring as of early this morning. A contract which had been let had been cancelled. There had been no dollars expended under the contract and no services rendered.

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

G. Campbell: The question I have for the minister is: how on earth does FRBC manage to hire a disgraced ex-NDP hack instead of forest workers that need help? How on earth do we end up with that kind of hiring to begin with, of someone who has carried out unethical behaviour and has supposedly been fired by this government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There is no connection between an MLA's office and this government.

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

G. Campbell: Let's be clear with the Minister of Forests. The Minister of Forests is telling us today in this House -- telling everyone in this House and the public of British Columbia -- that neither he nor anyone in government knew anything about this disgraced constituency assistant being hired by FRBC -- nothing at all.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I am telling you that when I learned about the situation late last night, early this morning, it was the first time that I knew of it. When I asked this morning whether this person was in a contract position with FRBC, I was told that, yes, that was true, but that they were taking steps to cancel the contract. I said that I considered that it was absolutely necessary that the contract be cancelled. No dollars had flowed under it.

As for the hiring procedures, FRBC can explain their hiring procedures in some detail, but this minister does not interfere in the hiring procedures of FRBC.

G. Farrell-Collins: What I wonder is: how come the only time the NDP does the right thing is when they get caught?

The opposition has come into possession of some new information on this matter. We now know that when Mr. Schneider was sort of fired from his job as the constituency assistant for the member for Comox Valley. . . . That's what happened: he was actually fired. But it appears that at the time, in the midst of a recall campaign, the member for Comox Valley stated in her local paper. . . . Actually, it says that she told the Echo on Wednesday that Schneider had quit to get back into teaching -- that he had quit, in the middle of her recall campaign. That's what she told her constituents.

What I'd like to know from the Minister of Forests is: in this job that this individual had at the time. . . . Did anybody bother to check what this person's background was? Did anybody do a reference check? Did anybody at FRBC phone the former employer to find out whether the person was fired or had quit? And can the minister tell me if the job that this person had as a contract at FRBC included covering up the facts?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the facts are that the person resigned his employment. What I know about it is that he was later successful in obtaining a contract. But no dollars had flowed in the intervening time. The employment contract, which hadn't been actioned, was cancelled.

The Speaker: Opposition House Leader, first supplementary.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has to understand about the type of person that he was hiring. FRBC was hiring somebody who had been fired for writing fraudulent letters to the newspaper. The member opposite, the former employer, knew that and, in the midst of her recall campaign, chose to say something other than that to the local paper.

So my question to the Minister of Forests, the minister responsible for FRBC, is this: how hard does FRBC look when it's trying to find out the references of someone? Or do they just take the reference from Evan Lloyd or somebody in the Premier's Office to make sure that this gentleman was hushed up in the meantime?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my understanding that Forest Renewal does check references. I would like to clarify the

[ Page 9804 ]

M. de Jong: I couldn't help but notice that the minister from the Nanaimo area was offering advice -- the same minister, of course, who during the last federal election didn't understand that you shouldn't be using your constituency office for partisan purposes. A great person to get advice from, hon. Speaker.

But, you know, maybe we're being unfair here. Maybe there is a positive feature to this story. At least we know that in addition to the $170,000-a-year jobs and timber advocate, FRBC created a second job. A second job was created. My question to the minister is: if it's this easy for a disgraced NDP hack to get a job at FRBC, how many more patronage appointments are in that organization in the place of people who really need and deserve the work?

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said there was a contract not unlike a stringer position, where if there's some work to be done, then we have contracts ready to go to do some work with respect to community liaison.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You know, I'm wondering if the opposition actually did a reference check on Warren Betanko, for example.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, right. As soon as I found out about this situation and inquired, this person's contract was cancelled. That's the action that this minister took.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, the minister has been up since 1 a.m. trying to figure out how he's going to deal with a situation of this government's making -- that at least one member and a number of cabinet ministers knew about it. It's wrong. It was wrong when it happened, and it's wrong today.

I'm curious as to why the man was hired in the first place. I'll help the minister, because I know he's nervous and having some difficulty acknowledging that this happened under his watch. So I'll help the minister. It's multiple-choice time, hon. Speaker. Was this disgraced ex-constituency assistant hired (a) because the Premier's Office ordered it, or (b) because the minister thought it would be nice to claim that FRBC created at least one job in the province? Or was Mr. Schneider hired (c) because he was going to squeal like a stuck pig to the media in the middle of a recall campaign if he didn't get the job? Which was it?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As usual, the opposition is probably wrong on all counts, hon. Speaker. The truth about FRBC is that it's working hard to employ displaced forest workers, and there are over 5,000. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .displaced forest workers who will be hired this year.

B.C. FERRIES PRIORITES FOR FREIGHT AND PASSENGER SERVICES

Hon. D. Miller: They do not have a proposal to purchase.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Well, it appears that the CPR is not aware of that, because they have the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the Washington Marine Group shortlisted as shipping operations that are prepared to take over this service. Will the minister tell us if the expression of proposal will be tabled in this Legislative Assembly and if he is prepared to explain to all those British Columbians who are routinely waiting at the ferry terminals why B.C. Ferries is more interested in moving railway cars and freight than they are in moving the mandated people of British Columbia from the ferry terminals during this summer?

Hon. D. Miller: In his question, the member really put his finger on what I think is a substantive issue. Let me take some time to try and lay that out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, no -- not a lot of time.

Hon. D. Miller: The issue that B.C. Ferries faces today is substantially, in many respects, the one they've always faced, which is a very high peak demand in the summer. That peak demand can be exacerbated by the fact that they are also carrying commercial truck traffic. We are taking many steps. For example, the fast ferry program will result in a diversion of that commercial traffic, in the main, to Tsawwassen to try to reduce the congestion around the Horseshoe Bay terminal.

The Speaker: The minister will complete his remarks.

Hon. D. Miller: But it seems to me, hon. member, that prudence dictates that any steps that B.C. Ferries can take to streamline the two streams of traffic -- commercial versus the vehicle and passenger traffic -- to provide more efficient service in the end. . .

[ Page 9805 ]

Hon. D. Miller: . . .can only be of benefit. . .

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .to those passengers that the member talks about. Now. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

FRBC HIRING OF MLA'S CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would imagine it's the management person responsible.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, I didn't lose any sleep over this, I assure you.

The question is: did this minister have anything to do with the hiring? This minister didn't have anything to do with the hiring. And when I found out that he was there, I took steps to ensure that the contract was cancelled. The approval of the contract would have been at whatever level in the communications organization approves small-level contracts. I can get the name of the person who approved the contract; that's not a problem. What is important is that no dollars have flowed to this individual.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Perhaps I can help the minister out here a bit. We know that Evan Lloyd is the chief NDP spin over at FRBC, and we know that Mr. Lloyd's ties to the NDP are a mile long. Can the minister confirm that NDP friend and insider Evan Lloyd was the man who orchestrated not only the cover-up of the firing but also the subsequent hiring of Dean Schneider?

Hon. D. Miller: It is somewhat disturbing. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: . . .because we appear to have an opposition whose specialty is allegations and whose failure, quite frankly, is proof. We do know, for example, that all of the MLAs on the opposite side had to go through an application process in order to become Liberal MLAs, and presumably the screen did not quite work with respect to the former member from Parksville. We do know that the member for Okanagan East -- perhaps it's an honest mistake -- hired his daughter as his constituency assistant and, when it was discovered, corrected the action. Fair enough. And we do know that the MLA for Comox Valley, when she discovered that her assistant had taken inappropriate action, took immediate steps to dismiss that person. Perhaps the opposition might pay more attention to the substantive difference between making allegations and actually having some substance behind those allegations.

Hon. A. Petter: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: I have just been informed that in the gallery today is a member of the Hansard staff, Marilyn Morgan Sage. Marilyn has been one of the closed-captioners for the hearing-impaired since that feature was introduced in 1994, and today is her last day. She's joined by her son Tyler and two of his friends, Matt and Brian. On behalf of all the members, I would ask the House to join me in thanking Marilyn for her very, very stalwart efforts over the years and in wishing her well in the future. Please join me.

E. Gillespie: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

E. Gillespie: There are two guests visiting the House today who I'd like to introduce and welcome to this House. Linda Hargreaves is a dedicated health care worker and committed volunteer in our community. She is visiting with her friend Gillian Gravenor. I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

Orders of the Day

G. Farrell-Collins: I was remiss earlier, and I ask leave to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice in the gallery two gentlemen whom I had the pleasure of meeting with this morning, and I believe they met with the government too: Mr. Eugene Price and Ken Fairfax. They're here from the American consulate -- one from the embassy in Ottawa and one from the consulate in Vancouver. I ask the House to make them welcome.

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

M. Coell: I'm pleased to continue my comments on the motion to refer to committee, made by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I started my comments with the premise that the government has gone down the wrong trail in job creation and that the socialist-centralist approach to job creation just doesn't work. You can't legislate jobs. I offered some

[ Page 9806 ]

[2:30]

The legislation needs debate; it needs a broad-spectrum debate. It doesn't need to be debated in the closed confines of cabinet, as it has been, with a group of friends and insiders, I suspect, that possibly have a single view. It may not be anything other than a very narrow and single view of how jobs are created. But that view isn't the reality for Canada; it isn't the reality for British Columbia. In the new global economy, it isn't anyone's reality. So I think this bill needs debate; it needs discussion; it needs the people on the back benches of the government to have some input. I know there is a lot of concern on the back bench that if the government doesn't do a decent job of creating jobs, possibly none of those folks will get re-elected. I know that is probably a concern for them, because they have a philosophy of socialism which they wish to present to British Columbians, and that philosophy isn't working very well at a number of levels.

This is a critical level. The construction industry is a window on how the economy is working in British Columbia. We're seeing great problems in that industry. All the people who create jobs -- the free-enterprisers, the people who take risks, the individuals, the small businesses that expand and create that extra job or the bigger businesses that open a new office maybe in a different city in British Columbia -- are frightened to do that. They're frightened, because they have a government that doesn't respect and understand free enterprise.

I suggested to the Minister of Finance that maybe she embrace free enterprise for a couple of years, try that in her budget and see if that creates jobs. I know it will. I doubt very much whether she believes that, and that's a shame. But I think discussion in committee would help. That would allow the back bench of the New Democratic Party, who are very quiet on this issue. . . . But I know that they're concerned. I can tell by the looks on their faces that they are very concerned. That would allow them to participate in a committee that would discuss what sorts of legislation would help create jobs and what the government could do to create jobs.

Our belief -- on this side of the House, anyway -- is that this bill will hurt jobs. But the government doesn't seem to be listening to us. It certainly hasn't listened to the job creators. It certainly hasn't listened to the small businesses throughout British Columbia that create the vast majority of jobs. That's unfortunate, because I think they have a lot to offer. Far too often government doesn't harness the power of free enterprise, especially this government. This NDP government seems to want to push free enterprise onto the back burner. It's almost like earning a dollar is a dirty word, taking a risk is a dirty word. It's: "We're going to legislate jobs; we're going to legislate how the economy runs." We've seen how that works. They've tried to legislate jobs, and that has failed.

As I mentioned earlier this morning, the provincial real GDP is going down and has been going down. Now the Toronto-Dominion Bank projects that we're going to have the worst economy in Canada this year, next year and the year after -- the worst economy in Canada. I can remember, Madam Speaker, when we had the best of all worlds in this province.

An Hon. Member: Not that long ago.

M. Coell: Well, it was before the election of the New Democratic Party. It was much. . . .

An Hon. Member: Before 1991.

M. Coell: It was much before '91, when we had the best and strongest economy in the country, bar none. No one could compete with us. We were creating free enterprise jobs. I want to stress again that free enterprise jobs are union jobs too. Free enterprise jobs are non-union and union. They're just jobs, and that's what people want. I think that people want to work. There are 190,000 people out of work in this province, who want to work. They want to be able to bring a paycheque home to their wives or husbands and to their families. They want to create good-paying jobs in this province. This government isn't doing that.

I believe that in moving this bill to committee, it's an opportunity for the government to look at their track record and look at some options. There may be some good options that the government has missed. We and thousands of British Columbians wish for the opportunity to further look at this bill and to make some recommendations and adjustments. But the bottom line is: create the jobs. Bring back the jobs that this government has chased out of the province.

Sometimes they say that it's the Asian flu or that it's a downturn in the economy. Well, I've got news for the government. It's more than that. It has a lot to do with the direction that this government has taken. It's got a lot to do with how this government has dealt with the economy, setting the tone for the economy and the creation of jobs -- and they haven't.

I look at some comments that were made by small business owners, and I don't see one that says: "We need more government involvement in the economy." Most of them say: "Cut taxes. Reduce the size of government. Stay out of business. Attract foreign investment. Encourage new business. Be fair to employees and entrepreneurs." This government is dividing this province, with the hope of winning an election. If they can keep all of the people on one side and 39 percent on the NDP side, they think they can win an election.

But there is much more to government and much more to the creation of jobs than just satisfying a few friends, a few of your supporters. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: government is elected by friends and supporters, but once elected they govern for all. They govern for 100 percent of British Columbians. They should govern for what is in the best interests of all British Columbians.

[ Page 9807 ]

That's when you take a bill like this, and you start to reassess: where have we gone wrong? I'm sure the government is thinking that. I know there are people on that side of the House who, when they go to bed at night, think: "How could we have gone so wrong with the good ideals and ideas that we have?" Well, I guess the problem is that the ideals don't work anymore; they need fresh ideas and a fresh approach. They need to generate an energy in this province that hasn't been here for seven years. They need to look forward to the future, not backwards to the past. Many of them say: "Why is the opposition making so much out of this bill?" It's because this bill has been called a nail in the coffin. . . . It's simply the last straw that the economy is going to be able to take. That's why we're saying: let's stop, let's reflect, let's go forward in a positive light -- but for everyone. Let's look at what's best for everyone in British Columbia. Let's not look at what's best for a small group of people.

To be perfectly honest, hon. Speaker, it isn't going to be best for them either. I've said before in this House that this government's policies are hurting union jobs. They're driving union jobs out of this province. Those union jobs are going to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Washington State. It's not good enough to just chase business out. They're chasing their own supporters out, and they're chasing their own union membership out. That's certainly not what they wanted to do, but it is certainly what they've done. This legislation, left the way it is, will add to that. You can count on your friends, neighbours and associates to slowly move out of this province. That's not what this government intended to do.

Unfortunately, because of the narrow scope -- the narrow socialist, centralist agenda -- they haven't been able to expand, to get out of that mould. Break out and move forward in a positive way. Look at the high-tech industry. Harness that; bring it here.

We've got a Premier running all over the country, fighting with everyone and not achieving very much at all. Every time I see that he's fighting for fish or fighting for jobs. . . . He seems to be losing every fight he gets into -- unless he's just fighting with cab drivers, bellhops, small business owners and fishermen. I don't know, but he's certainly losing every battle he's in around this country and around this province. Do you know why? It's because of the attitude he takes with him. He takes with him an attitude that is old-fashioned, out of date and that won't create jobs and the confidence that's needed in this economy -- the confidence for an investor, one person, just to come and start up a business here. He doesn't even create the confidence for one British Columbian to start up a business here. They'd rather start up a business somewhere else. A lot of these people are union members, the people that this bill purports to support. Union members are moving to Alberta to get union jobs. This bill is hurting them. This isn't creating union jobs. This is the same sort of attitude that Forest Renewal had, and that many of the other job creation, legislation-type projects had. They don't create jobs.

They don't stimulate the free enterprise engine to create those jobs. The free enterprise engine is single people who create jobs, who start their own business. They might have worked as a union electrician for five or ten years and then said: "I want to create my own job; I'm going to hire two people." Or they might have worked as a union carpenter and said: "I'm going to create my own company."

You know, they'd be better off to go somewhere else, because this government, which purports to help union people, doesn't. It scares union jobs out of the province. For far too long we've been saying that they're scaring business out of the province; they're not. They're scaring union members out of this province, and that's shameful for a government that purports to protect union members.

[2:45]

But I can tell you that the rank-and-file union members, the rank-and-file workers of this province, understand that when there aren't jobs, there are no paycheques. When there aren't paycheques, families hurt. This bill, with the other legislation, the red tape and the high taxes, is hurting jobs. It's hurting union jobs, and it's hurting non-union jobs. It's hurting job creation. Job creation is the responsibility of this government -- not through legislation, but through setting the tone in the economy, in taxation, in honesty and in integrity.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll notice that the red light is now on. Your time is up.

M. Coell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity. I look forward to the next opportunity to speak on this item.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to speak today on Bill 26, the Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, and in particular on the motion made by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head that Bill 26 be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. I'm very pleased to support this motion; I think it's a good motion.

It underscores one of the problems that we have in this Legislature and in this government: we don't spend enough time in committees involving all parties to discuss the issues facing British Columbia. So I'm very pleased to support this motion and would encourage the government to look at it. I think that Bill 26 needs a sober second look by the government. The whole idea of tabling Bill 26 at the present time, given the current economic conditions, needs to be questioned.

Referring this bill to a committee will give the opportunity to revisit the whole decision in a reasonable and credible manner. It will give the opportunity for public discussion, for consultation, for people to truly hear and for government to truly hear the feelings of the people that are directly affected. I think, as the previous speaker said, that there's a lot more people who will be directly affected in a negative way than the government realizes.

[ Page 9808 ]

I look at some of the comments that have been made by the government members and cabinet ministers -- in particular by the Minister of Finance, who at one time did appear to understand the current state of the economy and the impact of this kind of legislation. On June 3 the Finance minister publicly stated: "Given the challenges facing the provincial economy, this is not the time to take a chance on introducing measures which could damage the investment climate."

I thought that was a very significant and correct statement by the Minister of Finance, and I don't understand what is happening now when we see the tabling of this kind of bill. It really flies in the face of government's professed efforts to improve the business climate in British Columbia, to improve the opportunities for job creators to provide jobs. To create economic activity, there has to be a climate that's friendly to the risk capital and to the people themselves who create those jobs, build those plants and create those businesses.

The government has admitted that no economic impact study has been done on Bill 26, and I think that's also significant, given the current economic climate. There's no information on the economic results of this legislation. No one can deny the critical state of the economy for jobs, government revenues and overall activity. There are no numbers on the number of people working and those impacts or on the level of construction activity, which is already in very difficult shape. Housing starts are down very significantly. There are a lot of unemployed people in our construction industry, and a lot of them have gone to Alberta, where the industry has been booming. The ultimate impact on the cost of building various types of buildings, whether commercial, industrial or residential. . . . B.C. is in the worst economic recession since the early eighties, and the government does not know what the results of this legislation will be. They haven't studied it.

I want to reiterate my concern about the cumulative impact of these kinds of bills, this kind of legislation -- the cumulative impact of a whole host of regulations, requirements and paper burden from various levels of government -- on job creators in this province. My support for this motion to refer this bill to the economic committee is based on a concern for the state of the economy, the job situation and the plight of many families who are facing very, very difficult decisions in the face of unemployment. You can talk all you like about high-paying jobs that support families, but in many cases we're not even talking about levels of pay. We're talking about whether there's a job there or not. If we're not competitive in British Columbia, there will be no jobs. There will be no activity.

I continue to be concerned about the state of the provincial finances. The provincial finances depend on a strong economy and on people working. They depend on people working, on economic activity, on people being able to pay taxes and on business investment. The state of the provincial finances is very much tied into the state of the economy. Currently we're running deficits of $1 billion a year. We've run up huge deficits in the last seven years. The provincial debt has gone from $17 billion in '92 to $30 billion-plus today, and it is continuing to rise. This kind of approach to provincial financing cannot continue, because it continues to pull more and more dollars out of people's pockets -- that's assuming that they're working.

I see many lost opportunities in today's economy. This government, by its focus, is missing out on many opportunities in today's economy. I see the government incorrectly focusing more on bills like this -- which involve political considerations, political debts and political IOUs -- than on concerns about the state of the economy and people's jobs. I just see a lot of misdirected priorities.

This bill has had significant reaction from people large and small in the construction industry. Lots of workers and small contractors with 20 or less employees are not enamoured with this legislation. Sure, some of them are, but not all of them by any stretch of the imagination. A lot of them don't support this legislation.

The reaction is not just in the construction industry. There's a very broad coalition of business people who understand and see the ultimate, cumulative impact of this kind of legislation -- a little bit at a time and a little bit all the time, ultimately making us less and less competitive as a province and as individual businesses. People recognize the potential damage by this bill, as a result of the loss of flexibility for businesses to compete, the loss of competitiveness for individual jobs and individual projects and for the province generally. The loss by employers and employees of the ability to negotiate their own unique contract, their own unique working conditions. . . . It's an attempt to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on all of these employer and employee groups. It just doesn't work, hon. Speaker.

I had the opportunity recently to speak to a sheetmetal worker as a result of the debate on this current legislation. I had a very good and interesting discussion with him. He is active in his union, and it was interesting to me that the sheetmetal workers are one union group that doesn't always negotiate with all of the craft unions in the building trades union group. He told me that part of his responsibility is to visit the various worksites and businesses where his union had the employees certified. He indicated that these businesses were very often different and that there were differences in the contract. I indicated to him that that's what this debate is all about: the need for flexibility. Not every business is the same; not every business has the same requirements in terms of what sort of working conditions it needs. Sometimes employees have an interest in different arrangements.

A lot of small and medium-sized businesses in British Columbia are very concerned about this legislation. These businesses are the key to job creation and to the future health of our provincial economy. Labour policies are a major concern to these businesses, because they are becoming more and more unbalanced, undemocratic and inflexible, and it hurts their ability to respond to changes in the economy.

Most of the businesses in B.C. are small and medium-sized businesses. We always think and hear about the large businesses, but there's nowhere near the amount of activity

[ Page 9809 ]

Those are significant numbers. Small business is responsible for 44 percent of private sector employment, and very small firms are the most consistent source of job creation. Ninety-seven percent of construction companies have fewer than 20 employees, as I mentioned, and again, all of them are concerned about the direction this specific bill is taking and about the direction of the government. If we look at the state of the economy today and at where we've been in recent years, it really doesn't look very good. In a province where we have tremendous resources, where we should be leading the Canadian economy, we are simply not leading at all. In fact, we are in last place on many counts.

We are involved in a made-in-B.C. recession. When you take the combination of deficits and debt that we've built up and continue to run, we are continuing to increase the debt burden and the taxation burden for families in British Columbia. Since 1992 taxes have increased by $2,300 a year for the average family in British Columbia. That is an incredible amount of money in increased taxes since 1992, and it has been accomplished by this government a little bit at a time. Whenever some new tax was announced, it was: "Oh, this is not a big tax. It's just a small increase." But it all adds up, hence the impact on families and, similarly, the impact on businesses.

B.C. has fallen into last place when it comes to creating jobs. If you look at the job situation in 1997 in all the provinces, B.C. was the only province that had a negative number. It's a very, very serious situation at this point. Youth unemployment is approaching 20 percent, the highest youth unemployment rate west of Quebec. During the summer of 1997, B.C. students experienced some of the worst unemployment rates in this decade, and it goes on.

[3:00]

It talks about exports, shipments and retail sales all falling below year-earlier levels: ". . .job growth in the province has stalled. The B.C. economy is expected to remain in the doldrums over the next two or three years, and the unemployment rate will remain relatively high." That's a pretty strong statement about the future economic prospects of this province. From my observations, chartered banks, real estate companies and investment advisers don't like to deliver bad news. They like to keep the news as positive as possible. They like to maintain confidence, because it's good for business -- confidence in the economy, in the direction the government is going in and in our individual abilities to make a good living.

If you look at the numbers that have been published, the provincial GDP projected for the next three years by the Toronto-Dominion Bank, it really is a very significant and scary set of numbers -- scary in terms of opportunity in British Columbia, given our resources, our people, our location and our prospects. The forecast for the GDP for three years in a row is lower in British Columbia than in every other province in Canada. For 1998 the projected growth is zero; the average for the rest of Canada is a 3.3 percent increase in GDP. Every other province is higher than British Columbia. The forecast for 1999 is 0.5 percent growth in B.C., compared to 2.2 percent in the rest of Canada. In the year 2000 the forecast for B.C. is 1.5 percent -- again, lower than every other province. The average in Canada is 2.5 percent. That's strikes me as a matter of very serious concern, hon. Speaker. It underscores my support of this motion and my concern that the government should look at referring Bill 26 to committee, to consider their decision much more carefully.

I've observed in agriculture and in the agrifood processing industry some very, very significant rationalization over the last five years. I have tried to maintain a record of the processing jobs that have been lost in this province. For the last two years, we have tried get the Minister of Agriculture and Food to consider this issue very seriously and to do an actual, specific study into the food-processing sector in British Columbia in order to identify why so many plants were shutting down and why so many operations were being moved to other jurisdictions -- to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and a few down south to Washington.

I've kept a list to the best of my ability in order to record the jobs that were leaving this province. I should say, first off, before I mention some of these, that in studying the causes myself, it's just as the previous speaker said: these were mostly union jobs in this province being replaced by union jobs somewhere else. This was a situation that had built up over many years -- many years of ignoring the little things, like Bill 26, many years of ignoring the cumulative effect of non-competitiveness. This is a very serious list, in my view, indicating what can happen when you ignore economic reality.

In November of 1997, Nalley's on Annacis Island announced their closure -- a loss of 75 full-time jobs and another 75 seasonal part-time jobs. Now, I will say that the plant did not close strictly because of economics. It closed because of supply problems, partly related to weather, partly related to other factors. But certainly competitiveness, the ability to have reasonable costs, was a factor -- and a significant factor.

Again in November of 1997, Puritan, one of Lipton's meat plants operations -- I think that plant was in Richmond -- moved to Quebec, also resulting in a loss of 75 jobs. In December of 1996, Intercontinental Packers, located in Vancouver, shut down their operations and moved those operations -- 350 jobs -- to Saskatchewan. Also in December of 1996, Dairyworld Foods closed an ice cream plant in Burnaby, their flagship ice cream plant -- 68 well-paying jobs. If you add up just those four plants, you're talking hundreds and hundreds of jobs. We contrast these sometimes to those one-off situations where the Premier makes a deal and lands a plant -- a rare occurrence at that -- with a couple of hundred jobs, and everyone is supposed to celebrate. We are losing jobs as we speak.

In November '96, Lucerne shut down their ice cream plant in British Columbia, laying off 17 employees. They also shut down a jam and jelly plant in Burnaby; 80 employees were laid off in September '96. They shut down an egg plant in Langley, and there were major layoffs in August '96. I could

[ Page 9810 ]

The list goes on. Vegetable- and fruit-processing plants, one with 500 jobs and another one with about 350 jobs. . . . It's incredible, but the government never decided to do any sort of a study as to why these jobs left. They're happening just one after another. In July 1994, Lucerne Foods closed a bread plant in Vancouver, putting 89 people out of work. In September 1993, Pillsbury closed a fruit and vegetable plant in Chilliwack, putting 360 workers out of work.

This doesn't even touch on some of the lost opportunities: some of the new plants and some of the expansions that went to other jurisdictions. An organization called Westcan Food Management built two new meat-processing plants. But they didn't build them in Vancouver where the market is; they didn't build them in B.C. to service our cattle industry and our hog industry. They built them in Alberta. Their comment was: "Our experience with the government of Alberta was that they bowled us over with cooperation." They showed an interest. They showed an interest in having these businesses and these jobs in their province. We know that a lot of companies, such as Finning and others, have looked at moving their operations, or certainly a part of their operations, out of this province.

For over 20 years, I've watched a transition in the food-processing industry and in the grocery and retail side of that industry -- a very ruthless and brutal transition that has taken place, because people ignored economic reality. You cannot continue to drive up costs and prices and labour rates and WCB rates and expect to stay alive in the long term. In the absence of the government doing any kind of review. . . . Certainly I will say that the minister has in one or two individual situations in the past year taken some more interest in food-processing businesses that were struggling. I think it's critical that the government address the systemic problems, the underlying reasons. I think it's important that the government get out of the fire-fighting mode, when a business is failing and running to the government, and look at the underlying causes for British Columbia being uncompetitive.

Recently, in the absence of the government doing a study, the agricultural industry did a study. This study, which I want to quote from, was done based on work by Foodwest Resources Ltd. Robin Smith, an accomplished economist and agrologist, did a fairly extensive review of what's happening in the agricultural industry, particularly with respect to processing. If you look at the executive summary, hon. Speaker, some of his opening comments are good news in terms of opportunities and prospects for B.C. agriculture. He talks about agriculture being a growth industry; he talks about agriculture having good job growth potential; he talks about B.C. having an advantage both in domestic markets and in export; he talks about the incredible growth potential in processing, a potential that other provinces have recognized. To quote from this report: "Processing has enjoyed strong growth in western Canada since 1993, and this trend is expected to continue. Alberta expects to create 100,000 new jobs in this sector over the next ten years" -- 100,000 new jobs in food processing in Alberta. We are just watching this parade of businesses and jobs leaving British Columbia. "Unfortunately, B.C.'s processing sector has not mirrored this potential, as significant processing capacity has left the province."

[3:15]

Another interesting statement by this author is: "Agriculture, like other industries, is affected by the province's financial condition."

The Speaker: Hon. member, the red light is now on, and your time is now up.

B. Barisoff: I am pleased to rise today to support the motion by my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head to refer Bill 26 to a select standing committee.

When I first got elected in 1996, I was fortunate enough to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition to sit on a couple of committees. One was the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. That committee travelled throughout the entire province asking the people of British Columbia what they thought about the Nisga'a agreement. I think that what my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head is referring to is exactly the same type of committee, one that could go around the province and ask the people exactly what they think about Bill 26 and how it affects them. We travelled from the south Island and Victoria to the north Island, to the northern part of British Columbia, over to the Kootenays, into the Okanagan and into the metro area of Vancouver. We got all kinds of diverse opinions on what should happen. I think the same kind of thing should happen with Bill 26. We should take the time to find out what the people of British Columbia really think and what kind of impact it's going to have on the citizens.

When we went through the report, there happened to be seven members from the government side and five members from the opposition side. We argued and we fought, but we came up with a submission to government, and there was a minority report. But it was something that we could present to government, something that we had thrashed through, taking into consideration what the people were really telling us. They were telling us: "These are the impacts." This is what my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head is asking for this government to do: "Take some time. Listen to the people of British Columbia." This has a massive effect on the province of B.C.

For some reason, the members on that side of the House don't seem to believe that it will have an impact. Well, we've heard from. . . .Last night I listened to my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove on TV. He said that there were indications from businessmen who were prepared to move out $100 million worth of investment capital. That is a lot of capital. That creates a lot of jobs: union jobs, non-union jobs. It puts money into the coffers of British Columbia. It collects taxpayers' money; it gets money working. It will protect our education system; it will protect our health care system.

I see the Minister of Education in the House today. These are the kinds of things -- the way he spends money -- that we need to do. We need more money. We need it to come from the

[ Page 9811 ]

But the worst part about it is. . . . My fear that it's going to be hard to get these people back. Once they're gone, it's hard to get them back. I've got friends in the high-tech industry who are telling me that this is the kind of thing that drives them away. He said to me: "You wonder why we want to move to Washington State. It's things like Bill 26." Those are the kinds of things that drive people away, drive the jobs away. These are high-paying jobs. Whether you call them union or non-union jobs, they're high-paying jobs. They're the people who are going to sustain the health care industry and the public education system.

I know that the Minister of Education, the way he reacts sometimes, doesn't care that much about the public education system. But these are the kinds of things that he's got to be forced to. . . . He's got to look at having these kinds of things, where money can come forward, where we can sustain the things that are going to happen. They want to take all the portables out of the system. Well, we're going to be able to do that only if we are able to provide the money. We can't continue to borrow. We're so far in debt that it's not even funny. We go further and further. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: This is referring to the labour bill. The member on the other side says: "Talk about the labour bill." Hon. Speaker, this labour bill will drive jobs out of this province. It doesn't matter which part of the economy we talk about, this labour bill is going to affect all of it. It's going to affect the public education system in British Columbia. It's going to affect our health care system. It's affecting our forestry. It's going to affect everything. But for some reason, the members on that side of the House don't seem to understand that.

Just now my colleague from Abbotsford mentioned the fact that. . . . Look what's happening in the agrifood industry. The agrifood industry is leaving British Columbia. I was at a meeting -- the Minister of Agriculture indicated that he didn't think I was there; I don't know where he was at the time, but I was there -- and the people there were indicating exactly the same thing: we can't have red tape; we can't have labour legislation that's going to drive people out.

I had a gentleman meet with me in my office this morning, who brought up exactly the same issues. He said: "These are the kinds of things that are driving the farmers out of business." When you get labour legislation like this, it drives the farmers out of business. It drives everybody out of business.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: The member for North Island says he hasn't seen a unionized farmer yet. My fear is that he doesn't realize that this drives people out. The other side of that coin, though, is. . . . The member for North Island happened to sit on the select standing committee that I was on, which travelled throughout the province. He knows as well as I do that that was a great way to get input from the people of British Columbia. That worked very successfully.

My colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head is asking the members on that side of the House to look at this exact same kind of situation. Why don't we look at creating a select standing committee on Bill 26, travel throughout the province and see what the people all over the province think about it? That was successful. It's taken a year and a half to come to the House, but I understand that we're going to see it soon. We're going to be able to debate it clause by clause. We spent months on the road. We spent days looking, clause by clause, at the kinds of things we were submitting. When you look at it, that's the way business should be done here. Business should be done by taking something like this, which is this controversial, and putting it to a select standing committee. We have no problem whatsoever dealing with this where we all can. . . . The members from government can have their seven and have five from opposition if that's the way they feel, if they need the balance of power. That's fine and dandy. But let's listen to the people of B.C.

When we went around the last time, the people of British Columbia told us all kinds of things. Before I left, I found that there were some things I thought the people would say, and they said the opposite -- and vice versa. We found that both sides of the House were able to work together to create something; we'll see in the near future whether it can work. But at least the people of British Columbia had the opportunity to speak. Right now, with Bill 26, the people of British Columbia do not have the opportunity to speak; they've lost that opportunity.

We started with this bill being presented back in the late part of June. Two days later, we were instantly debating the bill. The government tried to push this bill through. "It's a meaningless bill," the minister said. "It means hardly anything." But when they lost on a point of order, which put them in a situation where it should have been put aside until the next sitting of the House, boy, they reacted quite strongly, saying that wasn't the right thing to do. They reacted so strongly that they brought in Motion 50 to make sure we debated this.

The other side of the coin is that they understand why this side of the House is adamantly opposed to it. We've got a government that was elected with 39 percent of the vote of British Columbians. We've got an opposition that had 41 or 42 percent of the vote. When you think about it, when we get this much controversy over one bill, I think it would only be incumbent upon the government to take Bill 26, refer it to a select standing committee, travel throughout the province, and listen to the people and to what they've got to say. Then we'll know exactly what should be done.

This shouldn't be pushed through by the socialist majority over there. It shouldn't be pushed away. They shouldn't just be able to ramrod this thing through just because they feel it's the right thing to do for their friends. We heard today in question period what happens with their friends: they just move them on to different kinds of jobs.

What we've got to do is look at this from the point of view of how it affects the citizens of British Columbia. How is it going to affect all the citizens? How is it going to affect individual people, whether they happen to be on Vancouver Island, in Vancouver, in the Kootenays, in the Okanagan, in the Peace or wherever it might be? We've got to understand what is going to take place here. How is it going to affect them?

[ Page 9812 ]

You wonder why we want this bill referred to a select standing committee? This is what the people of British Columbia would want. All we're trying to do is represent the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I listen to the member on the other side, and I think. . . . You know, I got a call from someone in my riding the other day who indicated to me that he just wanted a job. He didn't care what it was; he wanted to work. He doesn't want to live off social assistance. This is not what the people want to do; they don't want to live on social assistance. They don't want to drive investment out of this province. But that's exactly what a bill like Bill 26 is doing. It's driving investment out of this province to Alberta, Saskatchewan, back east and into the U.S. -- into Washington State, Oregon and Montana. It's driving investment out.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Earlier the member for Saanich North and the Islands indicated that when we get elected, it's to represent 100 percent of the people of British Columbia. We represent all of them. We're here to make sure that the province functions properly. Over here we don't represent a minority of big union people who say, "This is what we want," or a minority of big business people who say: "This is what we want." We represent everybody in British Columbia, so that we can make it work.

[3:30]

Well, we've seen now where our bond-rating agency has put us down. That's costing us more money all the time. Every time we do something like this, it costs us more. It's hurting public education; it's hurting our health care system. These are the kinds of things that we on this side of the House believe in very strongly. But I think that for some reason, on that side of the House they're starting to think: "Oh well, it's going in the wrong direction."

Hon. Speaker, I want to read you a letter that I received relating to Bill 26. It's addressed to me, and it says:

"Re: Bill 26, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998.

"I enclose a copy of my letter to the Minister of Labour today, which is self-explanatory. Needless to say, I urge you most strongly to do everything within your power to stop this insane NDP legislation. I know, of course, that you already do oppose it, and I'd like to thank you for that and for the intelligent and imaginative way your colleagues in opposition handled this matter so effectively on Thursday."

I'd like to carry on and read the letter that he sent to the Hon. Dale Lovick:

"Re: Bill 26: Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 1998.

"I write to urge you strongly to stop Bill 26 and not to bring back Bill 26. It is essentially similar to last year's failed Bill 44.

"I am an international trade consultant and am often asked for advice regarding starting up or continuing exporting business in British Columbia. I have to reply that under the existing Labour Relations Code, it is not recommended either to start or to continue with such a business in British Columbia. The reason: the employer can be put out of business at any time within 72 hours.

"On day one, his/her employees can be canvassed at their homes by a labour union. On arriving for work on day two, the employer is faced with a fait accompli that the labour union has obtained the signatures of a sufficient percentage of his/her employees to necessitate the formation of a union. At this point, the employer no longer has the power to communicate directly to his/her employees to place before them arguments persuading them against forming a union. On the same second day, a strike can be declared. At this point, the employer is prohibited from bringing in replacement workers in order to keep his company operating. On day three, the company, on strike, has ceased to operate and is incapable of paying its accounts payable. It is insolvent and can be petitioned into bankruptcy at once.

"Under these conditions, it is not possible to recommend that anyone start a business in British Columbia or that any existing business continues operations."

"At 4 p.m. on Wednesday, July 8, I am due to make a 15-minute verbal submission to your B.C. Task Force on Bank Mergers, organized by your Minister of Small Business, Ian Waddell. I have already made my submission in writing to the project manager of the task force, one of the points being that bank mergers contemplated would have the effect. . . ."

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure it's inadvertent, hon. Speaker, but that's twice now that the member has used a minister's name, rather than title. It's a small point, perhaps, but one that's important for the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, minister. The member will try to keep that in mind.

B. Barisoff: I was just reading exactly what's printed in the letter, so I wasn't. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, whether it's in the letter or not, you'll just have to make revisions in that case and not use members' names.

B. Barisoff: No problem. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'll just get back to where I was:

[ Page 9813 ]

"I have already made my submission in writing to the project manager of the task force, one of the points being that bank mergers contemplated would have the effect, inter alia, of denying British Columbia an exciting opportunity -- an international banking centre -- which could route all international trade payments -- approximately $6 trillion (U.S.) -- through Vancouver; provide a very profitable new export service for B.C. banks; use the Canadian reputation as a reliable, honest middleman; provide hundreds, if not thousands, of new skilled jobs, including new arbitrators -- of documents vis-à-vis documentary credits; would fill a huge international need; would not cost B.C. taxpayers a cent; would attract investment capital as well as trade payments; and would quickly recover its startup costs.

"But this proposal remains to absolutely no avail under the existing B.C. Labour Relations Code. Passage of Bill 26 would place it into the realm of the impossible. In that event, it is my intention to suggest the arrangement to either Seattle or Singapore.

"This is just an example of substantial job-creating investment, of precisely the high-tech type British Columbia needs, which would go straight out of the window if your plans to reintroduce Bill 26 are not stopped and the Labour Relations Code overhauled. The essence of such a banking centre, of course, is that it would have to operate seven days a week, 24 hours a day, with absolutely no possibility of its service being withdrawn by labour unrest or union action.

"If time permits, I shall include this point in my submission to you and your bank merger task force on July 8. I will not accept from you any suggestion that Bill 26 differs markedly from Bill 44. Sectoral bargaining, whether applied to the ICI alone or to other economic areas as well, not only forces the victim into a one-size-fits-all inability to bargain, but also makes it very easy to unionize a business. ICI today; the rest of us tomorrow.

"[Hon. Minister of Labour]" -- I took that out; thanks for your caution, hon. Speaker -- ". . .it is insanity. In the name of common sense and for the sake of all citizens of British Columbia, please stop it, and stop it right now."

Many people on this side of the House have indicated different areas where different people are leaving this province. Why? Because of Bill 26. Things like this are driving people out of British Columbia. We cannot continue down this path. I hope that the people on that side of the House are listening. I hope that they would take my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head's intention of. . . . I have got to know her very well over the last couple of years. We happen to be in the same office pod. The member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head thinks things through. When she makes a suggestion to refer this to a select standing committee, she really means what she's saying. She knows what impact it's going to have in British Columbia. She knows that this is the right thing to do.

I know that the member for North Island, who sat on the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, knows that it's the right thing to do to. He knows that that committee worked; it was a good committee. When I first got elected, that happened to be the first committee that I was on. I thought that government worked properly. I thought to myself: you know, there is a positive here; we can get things done. We travelled through the province. I really believed that we were getting things done. This is why I came to be a MLA, so that we could do something that was in the best interests of British Columbians. But Bill 26 is not in the best interests of all British Columbians. It's going in exactly the opposite direction.

I also had the opportunity to sit on another standing committee on the Motor Carrier Commission. Again, we travelled throughout the province. We came back and made suggestions to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. She took those suggestions and brought them forward. Today that system is working a little bit better -- not as well as I would like to see it. It could work better, but she took the suggestions. That was a three-person committee. We travelled throughout the province; we got ideas; we found all kinds of people telling us different things. But the biggest thing they were telling us was: "Get rid of the red tape. Get rid of some of these things that are happening. Get out of our face, government. Don't get in our face."

What are we doing here? We're going back and jumping right back into it. We're jumping back into people's faces. We're trying to tell them what to do. This is sectoral bargaining. You can say that it isn't all you want; it is sectoral bargaining. We're getting people from all over the province telling us it's wrong, and the members on that side of the House are getting it from all over the province. They know it's wrong; they know it's the wrong thing to do. I see the minister shaking his head that it's not sectoral bargaining. You know it is. You can't deny the fact that this is a form of sectoral bargaining. This is the thin edge of the wedge. We're heading down the path where we're going to destroy the province. We're destroying it by simply going this way.

We've debated this for hours and hours, and the members on the government side of the House must realize how strongly we feel that this is not the right thing to do. I mentioned earlier that the minister said it's a minor thing. It's a minor thing for that side of the House. If it's that minor, let's put it to a select standing committee. Let's listen to what the people of British Columbia have to say. Let's go around the province and hear them all from one end of the province to the other. If we come back and the select standing committee says, "Hey, we've heard from the province, and this is the best thing since sliced bread," then of course we could go with it. But we haven't listened to the people of British Columbia; we haven't listened to what's happening, because we know it isn't good. . . . Why don't we go and listen? Maybe there's a compromise position here.

My colleague from Kamloops-North Thompson indicated that he wanted to hoist this motion for six months. All we're asking the government to do is to take some time. Pay attention to what the people are saying. They're just not paying attention. We can't go down this path any longer. We wonder what's happening. Well, Bill 26 is to the point of being undemocratic. It's an undemocratic bill. It doesn't help the rights of the workers. It doesn't give them choice under the. . . The rights of workers to join a union of their choice is already protected under the current B.C. Labour Code and the Charter of Rights.

We've got to look at these kinds of things and say to ourselves: "Are we doing the right thing? Is this the right thing for the people of British Columbia?" Not is it the right thing for the members on the government side or for the members on the opposition side? Is it the right thing for the people of B.C.? Is it going to help? Is it going to create jobs? I look over there, and I hear not a word. Everybody is looking down. Is it going to create jobs? Is Bill 26 going to create one job? Or is it going to drive more jobs to Alberta? Is it going to drive jobs to Washington State? When we listen to the invest-

[ Page 9814 ]

[3:45]

Hon. Speaker, I think it's almost incumbent upon you to not allow that to happen, because this affects all British Columbians. This is the kind of bill that's going to drive investment out of the province. I think it's incumbent upon you to say: "No, you're not going to debate this bill night after night, until all hours of the morning, when people aren't listening." We want to debate this bill from 10 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night, when the people of British Columbia can spend some time listening to the arguments from both sides of the House and can understand what's taking place. That's the time when it should be debated. It should be debated so all the people can see. There are all kinds of members on our side of the House that have good arguments why it should be; they have excellent arguments. That's why we're here debating this at quarter to four in the afternoon: because people want to see; they want to know what's happening.

An Hon. Member: They're watching you.

B. Barisoff: Exactly. That's exactly what we want them to do. We want them to know what a destructive bill this is. Sometimes at 2 o'clock in the morning or 1 o'clock in the morning, we have people up there speaking, and all British Columbians don't have a chance to see the arguments that we're presenting. We want to be able to make sure that all British Columbians have that chance. It's wrong for the government to force the House to push this through until all hours of the night. This is one of the most important bills here; this is probably one of the most important bills we're going to see.

D. Jarvis: That was a very poignant and to-the-point speech. I hope the rest of the members here take heed of what he said. No wonder they call the member for Okanagan-Boundary "Landslide Bill." That was a great speech; it was right to the point.

How many more companies will have to leave British Columbia, flee this province and take with them hundreds and thousands of jobs? We are watching people flee this province. I believe 107 companies to date have left for Alberta alone. Mr. Speaker, how many do you think will have to go before this outfit, this socialist government, figures out what they have done to B.C.'s economy? Bill 26 will only worsen the already bad economy that we're in now. This economy is in tatters, and these people don't seem to know about it; they don't understand. When or if this bill passes, we will probably see this province's credit rating lowered once again by the bankers that are carrying our debt. We have a debt of $31 billion, and we spend $7 million a day on interest alone.

Once again everyone sees more labour legislation being brought in at a time when our economy is under such great pressures -- which have, I must add, all been brought on us by this NDP government. This will only serve to cause investment in British Columbia to be even more discouraged. Prior to this labour bill, B.C. was at an all-time low, and any additional change to our labour laws with this bill will only exacerbate the problem that we already have in investment in British Columbia.

Even in this morning's paper, for example, in the Vancouver Province. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I guess I'll just have to speak louder, because I can't talk over the member for Burnaby North and all the racket he's making.

In the Province this morning, it says: "Construction Slows as Economy Suffers." They say that it's the "sound of silence" and that "the construction industry -- one of Vancouver's largest employers and money generators -- is in trouble." Well, that is certainly indicative of what's happening out there, and Bill 26 is only going to cause more problems. No heed is taken as this government proceeds down its philosophical road, down that road that is today's very delicate economic climate.

If we go back to when the socialists were first elected in '91, it's hard to imagine how we could have had such a high business sector, with all the resources that this province has, and still come out with a massive debt. As I said, we now have a debt of over $31 billion and, unfortunately, it's still climbing. In the budget speech, we heard from the government that we were going to have a modest deficit of about $250 million, yet we know when we really examine the figures -- which we have -- that our debt will be in excess of $1.2 billion more this year than it was last year. We'll probably be over $32 billion by the end of this year, and we are paying $7 million a day just to service that debt interest. It's a disgusting situation, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and his ministers, of course, now blame all our problems on the Asian flu or the Yankees down below us. There is absolutely no culpability on their part. They didn't heed the warnings, and they didn't see the signals that the markets were changing. They proceeded with their social experiments down that philosophical road I was mentioning before. They were right; they knew better than business and banks and the economists. They didn't heed the warnings. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development has come out and said: "Look, I know more than the banks do." So what happens? He goes out and buys for British Columbia probably the most unprofitable mill there is in the province today.

Our tough overseas market is with Japan. There's no question of that. Japan buys close to 45 percent of our resources, and so when their economic bubble burst. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Back in the early nineties, not just yesterday with what they call the Asian flu. Japan's market burst back in the early nineties. They had vertiginous falls in their real estate and financial assets. We should have been aware at that time.

[ Page 9815 ]

Where was the government analysis and their economists at that time? Was the NDP really even listening to them? I doubt it very much. Where was the member for North Coast, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development -- I mean, he knew better than the banks -- at the time when all this collapse was coming? He was probably sitting in the NDP cabinet room trying to figure out how they could pay back their friends in the B.C. Federation of Labour by concocting a bill like Bill 26.

In any event, this government was not prepared for a market turndown when it happened. Because of that, all British Columbians will have to suffer. Now they are attempting to further muddy the waters with this Bill 26.

I guess it's almost smoke time for the member for North Coast because he's getting ready to leave the room. You can always tell when it's smoke time.

The sharp decline that we're experiencing in our economic performance is the opposite to everywhere else in Canada. We need more investment and development. We need other capital -- there's no question of that. We need capital to hold off this critical cycle that we are going through -- and hopefully, it is a critical cycle, and we don't go all the way to the bottom.

With the thought that no one minister, or even the Premier of this NDP has one iota of how to create money, because they've never been in business. . . . Not one of them, as you know, has ever been in a business has, ever had to meet a payroll. How can they. . . ? Well, let's put it this way: to make it worse, they have even politicized all the bureaucrats in the government, so they can't even get proper advice out of them anymore because they're all NDP hacks.

Mr. Speaker, we have run a deficit in this province for seven consecutive years now, with little or nothing to show for it. As I said, there's massive debt -- that's what we have to show for it -- high unemployment, and businesses fleeing across our borders into Alberta and Washington. Small towns up the coast, which the member for North Island represents. . . . In Campbell River they're holding meetings. The people are going down to these meetings that are being held by the province of Alberta, saying: "Come to Alberta. We've got jobs for you. Come on." There's a resource area in this province that this government has completely destroyed through its ideology. That is what's causing unemployment and suffering of families on the Island.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: He says, "You don't know anything about it," but you just drive through towns, and you will see all the buildings that are boarded up and the offices and businesses that have closed down. This NDP government is committing economic suicide in this province with its failure to manage resources properly -- and also manpower. They don't know how to manage it.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. I don't like to interrupt you, but this sounds very much like debate on second reading. I just want to remind the member that we're on the referral to committee.

D. Jarvis: Definitely, Mr. Speaker. That was a motion brought forward by my colleague the member from Oak Bay-Gordon Head, to refer this bill to a select standing committee so that we could get some input from outside this government, from outside what they do in their own cabinet. They have no experience, and that was why I was trying to explain. They have no experience; they don't know how to run a business. Not one member of the cabinet, not one member of the whole NDP Party, has ever held a position where they had to meet a payroll. As a result of that, they have no business experience. The evidence of it is in the fact that British Columbia is now in trouble.

Today the Toronto-Dominion bank came out and said that B.C. will have Canada's worst economy for the next three years. It said today that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and for the next two years after that. That's a sad comment.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. Take your seat, please. The Attorney General rises.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, point of order. I find the hon. member offensive when he says no one on this side of the Legislature ever ran a private business. I was in private practice for several years with four or five regular full-time employees. I find it absolutely offensive and ludicrous for any member to suggest that.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the member could clarify whether he is being offensive or not.

D. Jarvis: If the member feels that I've offended him, I will withdraw that remark with regards to him.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

D. Jarvis: I was referring to other members of the cabinet, and that is a fact.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are now in last place in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member. The member for North Island rises.

G. Robertson: I'd like to clarify a point too. When I was 18, I had three or four people working for me. I guess my point is. . . . Although the member is giving information, it is misinformation.

Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

D. Jarvis: It seems to me that everyone is getting upset and saying that when they were 16 or 17, they had a lawn mower and a few people pushing rakes beside them. Well, this is information that I pulled out of the information supplied to us by the government in the blue books.

[4:00]

Oops! Oh no, that's one of my own members standing up. You never know, Mr. Speaker. I get under the skin of the other side, because they hate to hear the truth.

[ Page 9816 ]

Without question, this is a made-in-B.C. recession, and it's a combination of bad economic philosophies that have been curtailing our resource extraction. They've incurred increased deficits year after year. They've left mountains of debt, as I've said. They've imposed taxes and fees on small businesses -- fees on top of fees. It's continually being placed on the struggling taxpayers and, as I said, the small businesses. All of this has finally put us in last place in production in this country. The government has taken us from a first-place province to a debt-ridden, last-place province, which pays $7 million a day in interest alone.

It's really a disgusting thought that we do not even have a debt repayment plan in this province. We have to pay $7 million a day in interest payments alone just to keep the money that we have borrowed, and we're adding to that debt every day. This is a government that was supposed to bring in a new style to government -- a caring, do-right government. Yet since 1991, in seven short years, they have created a province that is in such a state of hurt that we'll see their children's and our children's future almost going down the drain. We are in a state of uncertainty in this province, and our children do not know where they're going to go.

As I said, the Toronto-Dominion Bank says that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year and in the next two years after that. Can you imagine how you would feel if you're a high school student or in grade 10, thinking: "What am I going to do in the next two or three years when I come out?" You realize that our economy is going into the dumpster because of a socialist ideology that is bringing forward bills like Bill 26 without the proper input from people out in the community. It's just because they have a debt to pay to the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Mr. Speaker, I see I've got lots of time, so I will continue on. Our youth feel that their future work is outside of and not in British Columbia. We see high youth unemployment continually spiralling up, and now it's probably pushing 20 percent. The worst crime of this socialist gang is that they would sacrifice our children, our province's future, for their ideology and their financial debt to the B.C. Federation of Labour and Ken Georgetti. That is a crime.

Without question, this is an overregulating and all-consuming government. Its intrusions on the people of British Columbia -- the increased high taxes -- have created such uncertainty within business. In turn, that has caused slowdowns and has curtailed growth throughout the province. It's creating record bankruptcies and mounting insolvencies all across this province. For this, again I find this government responsible. No one else in any other jurisdiction is going through this situation. It's the NDP government's policies that have created the mess that we face here today. They can no longer blame it on the Socreds that were in before them -- who left them a debt, no question of that. But they doubled that debt themselves.

They can't blame it on the Japanese. The Japanese slowdown started back in the nineties, before this government was even in. The signals were there that the market was going to change. The Asian flu, which they're now trying to blame it on, came as a result of the Japanese crisis years ahead of that. They couldn't buy the rest of Asia's products. Of course, they went into a recession themselves. Forty-five percent of our goods are sold to Japan and Asia, and if they can't buy them, then we're going to feel it. This government was ill-prepared for the event, something like this happening.

What this Bill 26 means is that this will be the start or first encroachment of sectoral bargaining in British Columbia, which will take away the rights of business to negotiate their own collective agreements. It will effectively tie the hands of the small business entrepreneur in this province, the small construction company. It will force them to accept a contract negotiated by someone else on behalf of the larger construction companies or their competitors.

Bill 26 will affect the construction industry. The industry that fuels the economy of British Columbia is the construction industry; there's no question of that. This is an industry on the verge of collapse. And investment. . . . As I mentioned a little earlier, even today's Province is saying there's going to be such a slowdown that the construction industry is virtually silent in this province at this point. When this province starts to dry up, we are going to see hardship throughout.

I have a couple of things here that. . . . It's not just myself saying this, nor just our party, but it's being said all around. Even in my constituency, people are writing to me. This is one of the reasons why we want this bill referred to a select standing committee, so that we can have input from people out there who actually are aware of what's going on, in the sense that if things are having an effect on their business, they can give us some input as to what it's all about. This government is incapable of really trying to do that on their own.

I have a gentleman that wrote me, one of my Deep Cove constituents. He says:

"Dear Mr. Jarvis:

"As a small enterprise, we watch with fear as the provincial government steers the B.C. economy further into recession by promoting protectionism and unionized legislation. Labour costs are very high. Very high taxation and provincial red tape are a huge drag on the economy and prevent small business from achieving their potential. Please make sure to tell the Premier and the Legislative Assembly in B.C. [that] small and medium businesses do not agree with the introduction of Bill 26, which we see only as a precursor to other like bills and fully unionized economy. Don't let the economy deteriorate further with the introduction of this type of protectionist legislation."

Mr. Speaker, I have other constituents, as you are probably aware, that are in the construction industry. Ray Contracting Ltd., for example, writes and says:

"I operate a small business in the construction industry in North Vancouver, as an excavation contractor specializing in underground utilities. In this business I employ ten people, many of whom have been long-term employees. I'm writing to you to express my concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Labour Code, as I believe they will significantly affect my business. My business is not restricted to residential construction only. Approximately 50 percent of my business is in the commercial sector as well. And I'm concerned that the proposed sectoral bargaining provisions of the new Labour Code in Bill 26 will draw my company into a process where I will no longer be able to freely negotiate the wages and benefits of my workers, given the unique circumstances of my company. My company is already feeling the effects of a terrible market, and I'm concerned about the uncertainty that further Labour Code changes will have on the economy of British Columbia, and I believe that removal of the certification vote has already unbalanced the Labour Code."

[ Page 9817 ]

Another firm in my riding, which is in Lynn Valley, actually, wrote to the Minister of Labour and sent me a copy. Again, he operates a small business in the construction industry in the greater Vancouver area. He employs 12 people. These aren't big companies; these are modest, little companies. These are the ones that fuel a whole economy: employ 12 people here, ten people there, half a dozen more here. These are the people that are concerned. His business is not restricted to residential construction either. He says:

"Approximately 20 percent of my business is in the commercial and institutional sector as well. I'm concerned that the proposed sectoral bargaining provisions of the new Labour Code will draw my company into a process where I'll no longer be able to freely negotiate the wages and benefits."

"I'm concerned that the considerable spillover effects from legislation will hurt the construction industry and the jobs that we create."

"This is a sort of indictment of the first degree against this government's ability." There's no question of that, Mr. Speaker. That was Robert J. Rasmus of RJR Construction. He is another constituent of mine.

Then I go to where I used to be operating out of years ago. A lot of my colleagues, before I came into this business, are from the British Columbia Real Estate Association. The president of the BCREA says:

"The new labour legislation is fundamentally flawed and must be withdrawn. The real estate industry is one of the largest employers in this province, and it's concerned about the negative impacts that the legislation will have on investment and job creation in our industry." This is from the president, Mr. Thiessen. "The real estate industry is responsible for some 18,000 jobs, and it's a significant employer in this province, and it recognizes the importance of a stable and rational labour relations climate." And they know that this bill does not provide that. "Our biggest concern is that private sector investors will avoid B.C. for fear of higher labour costs and an unsteady labour climate."

It's been estimated that Bill 26 could increase the cost of housing by up to 15 percent. While residential construction is exempt from the sectoral system, many construction firms in the residential sector also work in light industrial and commercial construction and will be captured by this sectoral bargaining net. If the price of houses goes up as the result of new labour legislation, potential homebuyers, already facing Canada's highest prices here in British Columbia, will be unable to afford to buy new homes. If they don't buy new homes, the construction industry will further collapse. If the construction industry collapses further, you will no longer have carpenters working, you'll no longer have cement men working, you'll no longer have electricians or plumbers working, and on and on it goes, with roofers, painters, etc. They will not have money in their pockets, they will have no wages, and they'll lose their jobs. They won't go to the hardware stores, the drug stores or anywhere else in this province to buy goods, because they'll have no money. The more that happens, the more we will go into a depression. Yet this government is bringing Bill 26 before us, which will just exacerbate that situation.

[4:15]

The last Labour minister mentioned a year ago that he would build on a proven track record when he brought in Bill 44, and he said it would provide balance, certainty and stability in relationships between workers and employers. You have heard what I said about the contractors in my riding and how they feel about it. All I can say is that the Minister of Labour was certainly wrong in his assessment that there was peace out there in the world. Now they have brought in a bill that's almost as bad as the original, Bill 44, last year. He said that it would provide balance. Well, it doesn't provide balance. We know that the people out there in the contracting business don't like it. It would provide certainty. Well, it won't provide certainty, because we know that there is a problem out there and that people will lose jobs because of it. He said it would provide stability.

Mr. Speaker, I'm out of time, and I wish to thank you for the opportunity. I urge everyone to support this amendment to refer Bill 26 to a select standing committee.

Deputy Speaker: Just before I recognize the next speaker, I need to remind members that we are dealing with an amendment to Bill 26, the referral to committee. Also, I need to remind members to again refresh themselves on the rules in regard to relevance and repetition, particularly where members find the need to repeat their own arguments or the arguments of other members. We need to add something new to the debate.

G. Abbott: It's a great pleasure to join in this debate. Despite being up until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning for the past two or three days now, I feel really refreshed. I certainly have every intention of injecting a whole lot of new stuff into the debate today, so I know you'll be stimulated, hon. Speaker, and I know all the others in the chamber will be stimulated by my chat as well. Thank you very much for that inspirational address. I know it's given me that little pick-me-up I needed to get through the comments that are ahead.

This is an opportunity to speak to a motion by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head to refer Bill 26 to a select standing committee for consideration. I think this is just an excellent suggestion. It is one of a series of very constructive suggestions which the opposition has been making to the government around how they might improve or perhaps entirely rid the province of Bill 26.

I'm not sure if my friend across the way has a point of order.

An Hon. Member: No -- I'm sorry.

G. Abbott: Okay. After yesterday's pre-dinner comments to the Legislature, I'm so used to members across the way

[ Page 9818 ]

To continue on the point about the reference to a select standing committee, I think this is an excellent suggestion. I think there are some very good reasons why the entire House -- not just the opposition, but the entire House -- ought to seize on this suggestion that we send the bill to a select standing committee. I want to say, first of all, that as well as being something that would very much assist in the improvement of the bill and that would certainly be very much in line with improving the situation of the province, it would give life -- or reactivate, if you like -- a select standing committee which has been moribund, at least through the term of this government and perhaps longer. It would, I think, give purpose and new life to a select standing committee that hasn't had a lot of things referred to it. This would certainly give members of the government and of the opposition, as well, an opportunity to get out into the province and hear firsthand what the citizens of British Columbia have to say about this bill. I think that in itself would be an important and useful exercise.

Beyond that, clearly it would be of enormous value in terms of preventing further economic damage to this province. We have been making this argument repeatedly -- and I think not repetitiously, but repeatedly -- because it has to be said repeatedly that the policies of this government have done pretty much incalculable damage to the economy of the province. Bill 26 would be one more nail in the coffin into which this government is trying to put the provincial economy. The motion to refer this to a select standing committee would, at least in small way, help to prevent further damage to the provincial economy.

I want to note first of all, for context, that when this government came to power in 1991, they inherited the strongest provincial economy in Canada -- bar none, by far the strongest provincial economy in Canada. We were, in short, number one in economic growth. What this government has succeeded in doing over the past. . . . What is it now? It seems like an eternity, but I guess it has only been seven years. Over the past seven years this government has succeeded, in a way that I'm sure no one ever imagined they would, in driving down the provincial economy. Where we find ourselves today, in 1998, is not in number one position in terms of provincial economic growth in this nation, but rather in number ten. That is a remarkable non-achievement by this remarkably non-performing government -- to take a province that is very, very rich in terms of natural and human resources from number one in economic growth to number ten. It is a sad and pathetic commentary on this government that they have succeeded in doing that to a province that is in many ways blessed by nature and by the people who live here. As a consequence of this decline in the provincial economy, we've seen a number of associated features: a decline in new investment, a decline in housing starts and even an exodus of population in terms of inflow and outflow from the province.

One of the new things which I should note in this debate is that today we received, as I'm sure members on the government side have, a graph entitled "Provincial Real GDP at Factor Cost," which is a forecast by TD Economics as of July 1998. It is a revealing, if tragically sad, commentary on where we are going economically in this country, underlining again the very, very sound and powerful reasons why this bill should be referred to a select standing committee.

I'll just briefly note some of the things on the graph. It shows, for example, Newfoundland, which back in 1991 was the basket case of the Canadian economy. Now, in 1998, TD Economics predicts that Newfoundland will be the economic leader in Canada, anticipating a real GDP percentage change, positive growth, of 5 percent. That's the expectation -- that Newfoundland is going to lead the way -- and that's good. For a long time the rest of Canada has been trying to assist Newfoundland in pulling ahead economically, and now -- I'm sure, thanks to Hibernia and some other developments and probably a good Liberal government as well, if I can inject that small note of partisanship into this debate -- it appears that Newfoundland is at last moving ahead. Hopefully, all of Canada will benefit from that; I have no doubt that we will. Obviously it has implications in terms of transfer payments and so on. So that's a very good and positive thing.

When we look beyond Newfoundland to who the other economic leaders in Canada are, we come across to Ontario. Ontario is in second place on this graph, at an anticipated real GDP percentage change of 4.5 percent. That is not quite as strong as Newfoundland's, but of course it is a much larger provincial economy and certainly striking in its growth: 4.5 percent real GDP growth is anticipated for Ontario.

The other very strong economies in Canada -- the ones in third, fourth and fifth position in terms of real GDP growth -- are the western provinces. I'm afraid we have to exclude British Columbia from our definition of western provinces here, but I'll explain that in a moment.

The third strongest economy is our neighbour immediately to the east, Alberta. Alberta has a GDP growth of 4.1 percent anticipated by TD Economics for '98, so they are obviously doing very well as well. The next strongest is Manitoba, at 3.7 percent anticipated GDP growth. Close behind is Saskatchewan, which apparently, despite an NDP government -- obviously a more commonsense one than we have here -- is doing relatively well at 3.4 percent.

But what is really striking about this graph -- and I know that all members of the House have probably seen this and have been very shocked by it -- is that once we go beyond Alberta, it's like falling off the edge of a cliff. We go from the 4.1 percent GDP growth in Alberta to zero in British Columbia. This is the striking feature of this graph: you absolutely fall off the edge, off a precipice, to zero in British Columbia. Even folks across the way, government members who like to overlook all of this news and information, have to realize, when we see a graph with that kind of decline between Alberta and British Columbia -- and indeed the rest of Canada and British Columbia -- that there's got to be something wrong.

All of this goes exactly to the point of the motion put forward by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. Let's not do any further damage; let's go to a select standing committee. Let's take it across the province, let's talk about ways we can improve the bill, and let's talk about whether we need the bill at all. But let's not do any more damage to a province that is already looking at zero. In fact, probably the situation here is that you can't go much below zero, although I suspect we may actually see a real decline in GDP in British Columbia in the present year as a consequence of the policies of this government. You just can't overlook the fact that the rest of Canada is doing pretty well. Nine out of ten -- or 11 out of 12, depending on whether you want to include the territories -- are doing pretty well, and it's really pretty consistent right across the country. Yet when we get to British Columbia, it's zero. Why is that? The reason is obvious: it's the tax, the regulatory

[ Page 9819 ]

[4:30]

I know government members across the way think: "Oh, that opposition, they're just negative; they're just obstructionists." The fact of the matter is that there has been real damage done here; it can't be overlooked. The TD Economics graph is just the latest example of a long series of very real examples of why we need to re-examine this bill. I can't overemphasize the importance of the government seizing this opportunity to direct this bill to a select standing committee and giving it that kind of attention.

In terms of that economic damage, let me just note a couple of other things. There's the growth in unemployment that has occurred in this province since the NDP took power in 1991. Again, in '91 it was one of the lowest, if not the lowest, unemployment rates in Canada. Today, shamefully, British Columbia has the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec. That is an astonishing fact. Clearly the government has been woefully mismanaging the economy when we see British Columbia with the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec. I don't think that we can in any way underemphasize this fact: our youth unemployment rate is also staggering. Again, this is a government that has, at least in the superficial PR spin realm, devoted some attention to youth. Yet this very government's policies have contributed in a very marked and direct way to the highest unemployment rate among youth not just west of Quebec, I suspect, but perhaps right across Canada. We sit at 17 percent in terms of youth unemployment in British Columbia. That is a shameful, shameful figure!

In terms of the advantages of referring the bill to a select standing committee, I also want to note that it would. . . . It may be a small step, but it would in some measure contribute to the restoration of a more positive investment climate in British Columbia. I think that when the public hear the news that the NDP have seized on the wonderful opportunity that's being provided for them by the official opposition to refer this to a select standing committee, they'll greet that news with widespread joy, if not dancing in the streets. Regardless of that, I think it'll bring a more positive investment climate to British Columbia. But it won't bring a positive investment climate. Frankly, it will take the resignation of this government and an election to restore a positive investment climate to British Columbia. Only the inevitable and abject defeat of this government will restore a positive business and investment climate to British Columbia. This reference to a select standing committee would, at least in a small way, assist in the restoration of a better investment climate.

I previously mentioned a couple of points about the way people are feeling about the investment climate and our economic prospects in British Columbia, and I want to bring out a couple of more facts from the B.C. Angus Reid report of summer 1998. "A full 73 percent of those surveyed" -- that's British Columbians -- "expressed some reservations about the provincial economy, describing it as being in poor shape. This is up 29 points since December." A staggering figure. Three-quarters of British Columbians think that this government has put the economy in the tank and, despite all our advantages, that it is going to stay there. That's a staggering figure and a staggering indictment of the failed policies of the NDP government. I want to note another point: "Almost four in ten -- 39 percent -- of those surveyed believe B.C.'s economic picture will worsen over the next year or so." This is up five percentage points since December, and it is a full 17 points greater than the number of people who are more optimistic about the provincial economy.

Interjection.

G. Abbott: Now, the number of people that are more optimistic about the provincial economy sits at 22 percent, probably including the hon. member for Skeena, who obviously got his head out of the sand long enough to respond to this Angus Reid survey. That's good. At least he flashed his head up there for a moment and gave his view. Somewhat fewer than one in four think that the economy might get better, at least in the present circumstance, where they have a government with an utterly deplorable economic and social record.

The other point I'd like to make. . . . This, I think, puts the questions into context. I'll quote again from Angus Reid: "By comparison and to contrast, views of the Canadian economy are much more upbeat this quarter than for the provincial economy." Now, there's a shocker. It goes on to say: ". . .64 percent of people in the province give a positive assessment of the national economic situation, down a marginal two points from December."

Here we have British Columbians being interviewed. They were asked, "What do you think about the prospects for the Canadian economy?" and 64 percent of them said: "It looks really good." The same people, when they were asked the question, "What do you think about the prospects for the B.C. economy?" said: "I don't think so. It looks pretty grim." So 64 percent of the people being interviewed say the Canadian economy looks good, and only 22 percent say the B.C. economy looks good -- three times. . . .

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I know the member for Skeena is listening to this, and he's getting close, I can see now, to embracing the powerful logic around referring this to a select standing committee. Frankly, the member for Skeena -- and I know he has found his voice in the recent debate around this bill -- is one of the people who we are going to strongly suggest is on that select standing committee on the study of Bill 26. I think he has distinguished himself. I mean, for the first two years that I was in this chamber, I seldom heard from him, yet on this bill, his interventions and his comments have been most welcome and most constructive. I hope you would share my view, hon. Speaker, that he would be a fine, knowledgable, informed and certainly candid addition to any select standing committee on Bill 26 that might be constructed.

What we have are three times as many British Columbians saying that they are as optimistic about the Canadian economy as they are about the B.C. economy. Is it is complete fluke that three times as many British Columbians are optimistic about the national economy as they are about the B.C. economy? No, I don't think so. In fact, the same survey reveals

[ Page 9820 ]

Interjection.

G. Abbott: I appreciate that you'd like to hear some additional new information. I have provided you with plenty so far, and I'm not going to disappoint you in providing even more. I feel, particularly after the interventions by the member from Skeena, particularly refreshed in terms of contributions to this debate, and I do want to thank him for that.

The other thing I want to talk about here is how reference to the select standing committee would assist, I think, in some considerable measure in bringing about a more positive feeling in our most important industry in British Columbia -- at least in my perhaps narrow view as Forests critic -- forestry. I think reference of Bill 26 to the select standing committee, even if it contained the member for Skeena, would be a great way to assist our forest industry in British Columbia.

The members in this chamber may or may not remember that prior to this government coming to power and working its non-magic in terms of its abusive and onerous tax, regulatory and labour policies, forest construction was a really important part of our provincial economy. Regrettably, as a consequence of the policies and actions of this government, the very, very expensive, bureaucratic, process-oriented Forest Practices Code, for example, and the onerous, unworkable stumpage rates -- in some measure a product of that great organization called Forest Renewal B.C. coming on stream -- our forest industry, as we know, has been rendered largely uncompetitive in international markets. As a consequence, what we are seeing as well is a marked, terrible decline in sawmill and associated forest construction. That's a most unfortunate thing.

In addition to our forest industry directly employing close to 100,000 people in this province, construction around that forest industry has historically been a very important part of our economy as well. I wish I could bring this figure up to my mind in a more precise way, but my recollection is that in our neighbour to the immediate east, Alberta, forest industry-related construction is in the hundreds of millions of dollars in 1998. The figure of $300 million rings in my mind, but I can't be certain of that. But I do know that it's in the hundreds of millions. So it's a big part of the economic growth that's being anticipated in Alberta. We don't have that here. Why is that? It's because the confidence of the forest sector in British Columbia has been absolutely destroyed by the thoughtless, onerous regulatory and tax policies of this government. This government, when they came to power in 1991 -- and until very recent times, if indeed it has changed at all -- viewed the forest industry as just a big, plump goose that you could beat up and abuse in every imaginable way, but it would still produce those golden eggs that kept the provincial government going.

On that note, this has just come out from Price Waterhouse. This is the situation in B.C. as of 1997. For example, if we look at payments to government, we find $4.182 billion. That is the size of the forest industry's contribution to the coffers of government: $4.182 billion. As a product of all the enterprise, all the efforts of all those 100,000 British Columbians that are directly employed in our forests. . . . The consequence of that is that our coffers in British Columbia ended up $4.182 billion richer. That's great; that's wonderful. Want to know what the bad part of this equation is, hon. Speaker? The bad part of this equation is that net earnings for the forest industry were negative $132 million. As a consequence of all this effort, the government gets $4.182 billion; the forest industry loses $132 million.

[4:45]

When I was up in Kamloops listening to the Premier announce the modest -- we can use that term, which has so frequently characterized this government recently -- decline in stumpage, he admitted that 13,000 fewer British Columbians were working in the forests in 1998 than there were in 1997. The product of the jobs and timber accord has been a decline of 13,000 people working in the forests.

I see the red light is on, hon. Speaker, and I appreciate this opportunity to advance some persuasive arguments to the members opposite around why this should be referred to a select standing committee.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate this afternoon on the motion to refer Bill 26 to a select standing committee. I will make some suggestions as to the most appropriate select standing committee. I think there's one choice, and I think it's Economic Development.

Bill 26 is about the province's economy. It isn't about anything else. If we're going to make a referral to a select standing committee, let's be progressive. Let's put the discussion squarely where it belongs, and for me that is indeed around the discussion of economic development.

It was no surprise to me today to learn that the Toronto-Dominion Bank said that British Columbia's economy will be the worst in Canada this year. Further, it will be the worst in Canada for the next two years. It doesn't surprise me that that is exactly the length of time left in this government's mandate. These individuals opposite have some difficulties in terms of garnering support for policy that puts British Columbians at the forefront in terms of the job creators and in terms of making contributions to the provincial economy, to the economy of this country and to being competitive worldwide. That's what British Columbia needs to be known for. It needs to be known for treating its citizens in the best way possible.

The way to do that is through creative employment. People wish to be employed. They wish to have increasing levels of disposal income in their pockets every year, not

[ Page 9821 ]

My colleague the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head had the wisdom to bring forward this motion: referral to a committee to examine in more detail the shortcomings of Bill 26. It is absolutely a decision I support; it makes good sense to me. Indeed, that is something we would wish to support as members of this chamber. Every single MLA in this House has businesses in their ridings that are experiencing difficulties in today's economic climate. In their ridings they have individuals who cannot secure steady employment, who cannot provide for their families on an ongoing basis. There is lots of episodic behaviour around employment. People need continuity; they need durability; they need to know they can make some plans and have some anticipation that they can carry forward. We are talking about a citizenry today that is bereft of hope when it comes to providing for their families. In many ridings in this province individuals have been so depressed, so saddened, by the fact that they are not able to secure reasonable employment. They are not able to sustain their families; they are not able to provide for their families on an ongoing basis. Again, that's nothing to be proud of, so I stand today in support of the motion to refer to a committee.

Hopefully, it will be an economic development committee, because this is about creating reasonable economic initiatives in this province and being supportive of those initiatives. We have job creators. We have individuals who can truly promote economic growth: business people, people who understand the bottom line, people who are fabulous when it comes to having brand-new ideas and who are truly interested in the health and well-being of their employees and wish to take those issues forward or wish to advance a particular product line or a particular service. Whether it's in the area of science and technology or in the area that my colleague referenced earlier in terms of forestry practice, whether we're talking about silviculture operations in the province or wine-making or the tourism industry at Whistler, there are people who are prepared to craft employment opportunities in each and every one of those settings. They should be congratulated for being risk-takers, for continuing to stay in this province and provide employment opportunities. Those are the individuals who craft employment. It isn't anybody else on an ongoing, durable basis. Those are long-term jobs. Those are jobs that make good sense to people. I support, applaud and stand in awe of individuals who each day go to their place of business and put their bottom dollar, their last dollar, on the line to ensure that their business continues, that they can provide for their employees and that they can provide for their families.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, perhaps a reference to where one should be when one wishes to heckle is in order at this juncture.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you're drawing attention to members that are heckling from other than their proper seat, and that is an important point.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Certainly it's important, when I talk about families, to understand the families in my riding and the families in every single riding in this province who are having difficulty making ends meet. That's the dilemma around Bill 26. It was the dilemma around Bill 44. It's the dilemma around any piece of legislation that unsettles the economic climate.

The economic climate in the province of British Columbia is fragile at best. That's what the Toronto-Dominion Bank says -- this year and for the next two years. There will be many, many other studies to support that contention. We know that's true. So for at least the next three years this government should have the good sense not to unsettle the labour climate or the economic climate in this province.

Fostering some kind of collegiality or camaraderie and, frankly, some kind of investor confidence is the only action that can be supported by members of this opposition. It will be about what the future holds. Those are the actions we believe in very strongly, and those are the actions we have yet to see this government take.

Again I come back to the importance of the Economic Development Committee. Let's look at that. Let's examine the impact in detail. I'm constantly alarmed by the members opposite when they stand up and introduce legislation at first reading, knowing full well they have not done the homework. They have not done the economic impact analyses. Every bill has a cost. This one has an enormous cost, and the work hasn't been done. With most legislation the regulations will come many months afterwards. The regulations will only further dampen economic growth in the province.

I'm not proud of that, hon. Speaker. It saddens me that this is a message this government fails to hear. They hear the message from a good many British Columbians, probably heading towards 50 percent and probably 75 percent by the time this debate has concluded. People are starting to understand the connections between economic policies put forward by this government and the fact that they have fewer dollars in their pockets to spend. Tax breaks were promised, but not tax breaks for this year -- tax breaks for 1999, or maybe the year 2000, of maybe another 0.5 percent. We have neighbouring jurisdictions which are making significant tax cuts, in the neighbourhood of 10 and 15 percent. This government is muddling through with half a percentage point. How many more disposable dollars is that going to put in anyone's pocket? How many more decisions will be denied to families who wish to purchase a new bike for one of their children or who might wish to take a reasonable vacation? This government is not assisting them in those initiatives. That's of extreme concern to me.

An editorial just this month is entitled "Nightmare on Wall Street." I want to quote it into the record. It's a warning about B.C.'s economic health being on the skids. It says that British Columbians are being warned. Basically, they're saying that it's something they feared all along: ". . .high taxes, costly regulations and tough labour laws have resulted in the big business chill. Investors and entrepreneurs are heading to warmer receptions in Alberta or the U.S. They know when they're not wanted." The final comment in the article states: "Wish the same was true of the government."

For individual British Columbians today this is about whether or not anything that is done in this Legislature will

[ Page 9822 ]

You will know, hon. Speaker, that these individuals have been hit pretty hard over the last seven years. There are individuals who have refused to do business today in this province and have left. There are many more companies today which are reducing the number of employees because they refuse to participate with this government when they do not see this government meeting them anywhere on -- let alone halfway down -- the road to increased prosperity. They see this government refusing to meet them anywhere on the road.

[5:00]

In debate yesterday I referenced the questions of Alzheimer's, breast cancer, Parkinson's -- there's a whole array of medical issues that can benefit from increased research, increased development. Who does that research? Some of the best scientists in the world are prepared to come to British Columbia, but they need to know that this government believes in what they're doing. This government has given no indication that that is the case.

This government has spent much time being sprinters, if you will, rushing back and forth, creating chaos and moving on, beating up on communities or agencies or ideas and moving on. What we want to see is a government that's got some durability, some long-distance staying power. If this is the race to the bottom, it's the New Democratic government that should be leading us. For me, this is the race to the top. I want to be part of a very fine and prosperous province. I want to see people talk about their government with pride. I want to see good decisions taken that impact positively on British Columbians.

There's been much discussion in the press of late regarding the Labour Relations Board. Basically, the contention is that the bias they have demonstrated has ruined their credibility. So now we have a Labour Relations Board and a government that don't favour balance in terms of labour relations; they don't favour that. You give away that level of credibility, and what then? If you reduce the number of people willing to provide employment, you've reduced the number of businesses in the province. If this trend continues, who is this Labour Relations Board going to monitor? There will be no one left who believes in the process.

Seeing some of these individuals move on is probably not a bad thing, because they've certainly lost the support of business. This should be a discussion about partnership. Business and labour should be in a partnership to craft the best possible return. They can't do it, in terms of being on a level playing field, when the Labour Relations Board itself has been rightly accused of bias, found guilty of bias. That's an enormous concern. If business stops creating employment, each constituency in this province will suffer dramatically. The financial standing of this province will continue to suffer.

I don't enjoy being in a province that is in tenth place economically. I don't enjoy seeing such a dramatic fall from first spot to tenth spot in seven years; it's not an enjoyable exercise. It's not healthy; it's not decent; it's frankly damaging to families, to businesses and to communities. It's time to try and breathe some life into the majority of communities in this province that have been damaged by the policies of this government. It's time to try to breathe some life. Bill 26 will not do that. That's pretty much a given at this juncture.

The political parliamentary process, unfolding as it will, has provided us with the option to refer this to a select standing committee. I support that motion. I would hope that this bill and any other labour bills that come forward will be before the Economic Development Committee for a minimum of six months. When it again surfaces in this House -- if indeed this government does not learn and chooses to continue to bring this information back to us -- it should come back with an impact analysis. It should come back with some study, some research, that looks at the necessity, the viability, the impact, the domino effect and the unanticipated consequences.

All of those issues are vital to securing support from this opposition. When that is not done, we rightly object. In fact, we are joined in this battle by enormous numbers of British Columbians who are the business creators, the wealth creators, who create jobs. They too are saying: "Do not unsettle the labour climate in the province."

Are there any other options before us today? Yes. This government could have the wisdom to withdraw Bill 26, do the homework, come back to us in the fall and have an ongoing discussion. I would welcome that decision if it were taken by this government, and I would support it. It's a good opportunity for this government to take a candid look at this bill from the perspectives that I have outlined, whether it's unanticipated consequences, impact analysis, economic viability -- any vantage point they choose around that circle with Bill 26 at the centre. Pick one of those areas and truly examine it in some detail. That would be a very fine initiative, and it's one that I would support.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

So there are options, but with the options has to come the commitment to do some homework, to look at the bill from the perspective of how durable it is for the future prosperity of this province. That's the ultimate goal. We wish to see the province of British Columbia prosper -- prosper mightily, do some wondrous things, be a world leader, craft employment, bring new ideas to the fore, export products worldwide, invite the world's best scientists and leaders to come and share ideas.

We are living in the communication age. We are soon to be in the biotechnology age. We are close to solving some of the very, very complex problems. All of that enterprise could happen in British Columbia. We have all the ingredients to make that happen, but I don't believe we have the political will today to allow that to happen. Those opportunities are

[ Page 9823 ]

My vision for this province, what I wish to see. . . . I want people who have humanitarian instincts, who have some heart, some soul, some vision, some forethought when it comes to creating a prosperous province. I know the anguish that people experience when they're looking for work and are continually unable to secure employment, when they're not able to do for their families the things they wish to do.

I spent many, many years as the critic for the workers compensation system, with people who had opportunities, had lives and livelihoods that made sense to them. That, in most cases, abruptly came to an end. This province couldn't provide for them, didn't provide for them -- that group, as well as many other groups in many communities in this province that many of us could name. Many souls who live in our ridings have extensive disappointment and are unhappy with the way their lives have unfolded. For the most part, these individuals are prepared to make a contribution, to do some good things, to be on the road to improving their life and livelihood, to care for their families, to look out for each other.

We are in the business of creating neighbourhoods, crafting communities -- building the better citizen, if you will. That is what it is, I think, to be a parliamentarian. I don't think it's about disrupting the labour climate to the extent that more people will be unemployed or will not be in a position to provide for their families, that more people will have concerns about episodic employment, where they may have a job for two or three weeks.

There are some interesting comments that I wish to put on the record today. Yesterday I made some comments about the one-size-fits-all agreement. I want those kinds of issues to be examined in infinite detail when this bill goes to the committee. That is what I wish to see happen. That is the purpose of a referral motion.

One of the issues I touched on earlier was sectoral bargaining. Again, in the Vancouver Sun of June 20, it said: "Sectoral bargaining allows master labour agreements to be implemented industrywide rather than on a company-by-company basis." It denies individual needs at individual companies. Industrywide as opposed to a company-by-company basis means that "any business employing union members covered by a master agreement must adhere to a 'one-size-fits-all' deal, even though the employer may have had no say in how it was negotiated." It doesn't make sense. No employer is going to enter into an agreement that he's not sure he can fulfil, that he's not sure he can pay for.

So what happens? The workforce is reduced. That's the only option at his disposal. You either have enough money to pay your employees under this new agreement or you don't. There are no grey areas when it comes to meeting a payroll -- it's a pretty black and white situation -- and those people expect dollars every second Friday, to do the things that each of us expects to do: provide for our families, look out for what happens in our communities. To do that without a cent in your pocket is demoralizing. It's wrong. It's shortsighted of this government if they think that unsettling the labour or economic climate, when it is as fragile as it is today, is in the best interests of British Columbians.

Frankly, I believe they know that's not true. I believe members opposite know that to be untrue. It saddens me if they simply let it go, because they too have constituents who want the very best for their families, and they should stand up and be counted on this question when we talk about choice and opportunity and individuality. That is what is regarded and respected. It's not something that we can shuffle under the carpet and hope will go away, frankly.

The article continues: "Forcing sectoral bargaining onto the sector poses the risk of serious labour unrest throughout the construction industry, which will further damage the economy." So it's like tossing an enormous risk out there, sitting back and hoping to find something else to blame it on. It's not parliamentary behaviour. A question is posed in this article: "When asked 'with specific reference to labour issues' at what point the cost of doing business in B.C. outweighed the cost of moving their businesses out of the province, 50 percent" -- fully 50 percent -- "said they were already at or beyond that point, and another 30 percent said they were rapidly approaching that point or already considering moving." So if this is one more layer of bureaucracy, one more attempt to further fetter how business is done in the province, businesses will leave and take with them good jobs. Those jobs will be offered to people in other jurisdictions, whether that jurisdiction be Alberta, Washington State, Oregon, or perhaps further afield. When businesses leave, they take viable employment opportunities with them.

That is the crux of the discussion today, because I began my debate talking about Bill 26 being about economic viability -- the feasibility of continuing to prosper in this province -- and fully 80 percent, if they've not already taken the decision to leave, anticipate that they will. That will only further dampen the economic viability of this province. The Toronto-Dominion Bank has already heralded that it'll be three years before this province begins to see some economic stability. Three years is an absolute lifetime to British Columbians today who are seeking employment and having difficulties providing for their families. Three years is a lifetime, and we can't forget that that length of time needs to be addressed by this Legislature in a positive fashion, not by putting more risks in the way of individuals who create employment. Bill 26 is an enormous risk. This commentary asks employers the very question of whether or not they would choose to stay in this province, and the answer again was clear: fully 50 percent have reached the point of seeking a new location for their business outside of British Columbia.

Roslyn Kunin, an economist many of us are familiar with, did an analysis of the research. In her analysis: "The combination of a poor business climate and the threat of new legislation -- in most cases, in that order -- is causing a continued flow of construction industry capital, effort and jobs out of the province." Roslyn Kunin is well respected. Let me repeat it. She's talking about British Columbia. The hon. minister may want to get the entire study; if she doesn't have it at her disposal, I will happily provide it.

[5:15]

Interjection.

L. Reid: I'll slow it down for the minister. The combination of a poor business climate and the threat of new legislation -- in most cases, in that order -- is causing a continued flow of construction industry capital, effort and jobs out of this province. She added that many potential projects will be considered unfeasible or unfinanceable if changes to the Labour

[ Page 9824 ]

Certainly one of the issues we talked about is whether or not there were opportunities available for British Columbians to make a series of different choices. Ms. Kunin outlined what she believes the majority of the choices will be -- that people will choose to take their business prospects elsewhere, will choose to provide very good jobs in other jurisdictions. That is not a chance that this province can afford to take. The Toronto-Dominion Bank has said that the next three years are absolutely critical to this province and that the financial and economic feasibility of this province is sincerely at question for the next 36 months. I don't know anyone in their right mind who would herald that as good news. It's an enormous concern that we have individuals today who are prepared to ignore the best advice of the day, whether it's from Roslyn Kunin or the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

They may talk about consultation, and I will agree that they have probably heard the best advice of the day, but they have absolutely chosen to ignore it. That's an enormous concern to thoughtful people, when it comes to what is in the best interests of the citizenry of this province. I am concerned for my constituents. I know that there are members opposite who are concerned for their constituents and who truly believe that a strong economic climate will continue to craft employment opportunities in this province. They know in their heart of hearts that Bill 26 is not the answer. It will not have a positive impact. It is not the time to tamper with a very fragile economy. No matter which research document you pick up. . . . I emphasize research document, because I don't believe that this Minister of Labour has done his homework, and I frankly don't agree that this government has done its homework when it comes to knowing what is best for the province of British Columbia. I look forward to the next election.

R. Masi: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to rise and support the motion to refer Bill 26 to a select standing committee for further examination.

In British Columbia we've had a very long and very rich history of labour relations, sometimes rife with struggle and, unfortunately, with some bloodshed -- a lot of colourful characters. We've had characters such as Bill White, Bill Stewart, Harvey Murphy, Joe Salsberg, Percy Bengough, Nigel Morgan and a number of other very colourful men who really struggled and worked hard to develop the union movement in British Columbia. Even in those days -- especially in those days, I should say -- there were pretty violent turf wars. Some of you who have studied union history more than I have would probably know a lot more about these turf wars.

At one time just after World War II, in the fifties, the Communist Party -- which I think went by the name of the Labour Progressive Party -- controlled a number of unions in British Columbia: the IWA, the Boilermakers and especially the mine, mill and smelter workers, which were very strong up in the Kootenay area of Trail and Rossland, and of course in the Natal-Michel area. I can remember as a young lad going to a miners' picnic in the Michel area, and there was Harvey Murphy himself. Of course, I was -- I'm not sure what I was -- probably impressed to see a real hero of the union movement, despite the fact that I think there were probably a number of RCMP agents in the crowd having a very close look at him, because, of course, those were the days of the Cold War.

I was interested in reading further about this era, especially the comments of Bill White. Bill White was a very aggressive gentleman in the labour movement back in the fifties. He was head of the Marine Workers and, of course, a very active member of the Communist Party of British Columbia, which I believe, again, was the LPP. But the comments he made just a few years ago are interesting. He was talking about the labour movement in British Columbia today. I'd like to quote him. I've left out the really colourful aspects of his language, so I think we'll stay within parliamentary procedure here: "It's got things in the Labour Code that we didn't even dream about in the old days." Now, he's referring, of course, to positive elements for unions in the Labour Code today, so maybe we should reflect that things aren't so bad at that.

Another comment about the union movement today from Bill White is: "It might be big, but it looks awful flabby to me. Most fellows in the union today hardly know they're in it, except for the nick in their paycheque. The typical union today has very little presence in the workplace, and as much as I hate to say it, the closed shop has a lot to do with it." Bill White's comments on closed shop are somewhat interesting.

He went on further. He said: "It's bad enough not being able to tell the bosses from the labour leaders by looking at them or when they talk, either." Surprise, surprise! The labour leaders are looking pretty posh these days, aren't they?

So I guess what I'm saying is that times have changed. I believe essentially that the labour movement must evolve. Turf wars are always a presence. Back in those days, of course, the Communist Party of British Columbia and the CCF party in British Columbia attempted to gain control of unions. Of course, today we seem to have it the other way around, where in British Columbia the unions have control of the party. So, while turf wars go on within the union movement, the situation is somewhat reversed.

I don't believe that government legislation supporting old-line unions and old-line thinking is compatible at all with today's economy. Government, if it really followed. . . . If the so-called New Democratic government really followed true social democratic principles, it would not be so closely aligned with labour. I sometimes wonder just where the NDP is going and in what form it exists today. I have problems with it. It's not the party that we knew in the past; it's not the party of Woodsworth; it's not the party of M.J. Coldwell. Again, I remember hearing M.J. speak very clearly. I thought: you know, he's almost got it -- not quite, but almost. Perhaps he may have been just a Liberal in a hurry at that time. But he had some good ideas. Of course, following that, along came Tommy Douglas, who was a most remarkable Canadian. You know, these were a different cut. These were prairie populists, essentially. They came out of the same movement, the Grange movement. I guess even the right wing had a movement at the time. I believe it was the United Farmers, or something like that. You know, the right wing and the left wing can blend together quite easily sometimes. It's very interesting, looking at a political spectrum. It's really not one line; I think it's more of a circle.

I think the NDP today has lost its way; it has lost its basic principles of social democracy. What it has become today, essentially, is a big-labour party. It's almost a one-dimensional party. I'm sorry to see that. But I understand why; I really do. If you look back at the origins of the CCF party in British Columbia, it has sprung from different roots. You can't compare Ernie Winch and Harold Winch with M.J. Coldwell and Tommy Douglas. It was, essentially, a labour-based party. What it's done, of course, is evolve from its labour roots and spring into what it is today. Again, I'm not sure what it is

[ Page 9825 ]

The traditional attitudes that we've seen regarding organizing and the relationship between employers and workers are being changed today. We have to become current; we have to upgrade our thinking. The old days are gone. Bill White's gone. Harvey Murphy's gone. We have to look at how things have changed in the way the world does business. We talk about instant communication; we talk about movement of capital. We talk about a whole different world now than we had in the fifties. We cannot equate our labour-law thinking today based on fifties thinking. It just doesn't apply. We have to think in broader, greater terms.

It's unfortunate in this province. . . .

Interjections.

R. Masi: Settle down, settle down.

It's unfortunate that it's so polarized in this province. It really is. Of course, if you have a polarization-type party, you're going to have polarized politics in this province. But you know, we went through Bill 19. I wasn't in this House at the time, but I was a reasonably aware person at the time when it came in. It was a radical bill, and it swung the pendulum too far one way. I don't think anybody can dispute that. But we cannot just swing it back over the other way, because ultimately it has to swing back the other way. We have to expand our thinking when dealing with labour bills. Obviously the objective has to be to strive for maintaining a balance in labour relations. Now, balance may bother some of the members on the other side. I've heard the comments about Liberals: "Well, they're not on either side; they're on the fence." I've heard all that. But you know, balance is a reflection of most Canadians. Canadian thinking is that way. Historical thinking is that way.

[5:30]

I think it's very important that the government drop Bill 26 at this time and refer it to a standing committee on labour. This standing committee should have a mandate to look at a twenty-first century approach rather than a 1950s solution. This would be a breath of fresh air in B.C. It would get us out of this House, out of this sort of cloistered thinking, out into the province to hear ideas -- this may be a novel thing -- that are out there, and then turn the findings of a standing committee over to a working commission that will in fact write up some initiatives that perhaps will do this province some good.

It doesn't hurt to go out and talk to young people, who are coming out of school by the thousands every year. We have responsibility for their training, for job-finding. It doesn't hurt to talk to women. I'm glad that the Minister of Women's Equality is in the House, because we know that only 5 percent of women are training today in apprenticeships, and that's something that we have to improve; we have to get better at doing that. If we talk about native Indians, we have a really negligible number involved there. We have to look at this, and I'm sure that the members on the other side of the House will agree with that. We have to get out and talk to people about it. How many women actually went to discuss. . . ? How many women were at the Kelleher commission -- or whatever it was -- giving input to that? Not very many; I doubt there were many. But we have to look at this.

There's no rush. We don't need Bill 26 this month; we really don't. So we'll take our time on this side, and we'll talk lots about it. But there's no rush, and the timing is wrong.

Interjections.

R. Masi: The other side, the members opposite, say: "Well, there's three years to an election in 2001." Why don't we do it right? If you rush implementation, if you go too quickly, you don't necessarily do it right. We have a couple of examples of the NDP government rushing in. They rushed in on the Gove report. The Gove report was an excellent report, but the pressure was put on the ministry to rush in. So what do we have today? We have backtracking, change. Let's back up a little bit. Let's think this over.

Interjections.

R. Masi: I think maybe we're getting some responses on the other side. I remember the great health reorganization plan -- and again it was: "We have to rush; we have to put regionalization in; we have to do all these things." You know, maybe it would have been better to do a study, do some pilot projects, look at it, examine the consequence of actions, set up some models. That may not be how you want to run government, but that may be how we should run government.

In my opinion, anyway, the government has to come up with some innovative solutions for the labour scene in British Columbia. We just cannot keep going along the way we are. We're losing investment; there's no question about that. Of course, when you lose investment it has a direct effect on the economy, which in turn has a direct effect on social programs that the government is attempting to run. So you have to redesign social programs from an economic point of view and, of course, cut back on services there. That is not what the mandate of a government is; the mandate of a government is to provide these social services to the people of the province.

I believe that it wouldn't be impossible to look at some of the innovative solutions that we have to come up with. I'm not saying to implement; I'm saying to look at, to examine -- and a standing committee could look at a high-wage, high-production strategy, and develop some models out there to look at the impact on the economy. It may not be an effective way; it may be an effective way to go. But we all know that when we have investment and when investment is attractive, we have business going on, we have profit -- profit is not a dirty word -- and then we have good wages. That's what it's all about. So why not look at it? Why not look at what a model of high wage, high production would be and examine this in depth to see whether it would be good or bad -- with pilot projects, impact studies on the economy and the things that you have to do before you go into major realignment of policy.

Why can't we carefully examine the concept of research for training and education? We know that training and education are some of the keys to increased productivity. I'll give credit to the government here. The government has put for-

[ Page 9826 ]

We talk about the whole idea of credentialling here, and it must be examined and studied with a view to the new technologies out there and the complexities, as I said before, in commerce and transportation. We have to talk about the instant cash flow around the globe, because you can't separate training, production and investment. It's not the old days. You can't separate these things anymore. You have to think about it as one mass, one concept.

We know, of course, that money moves. We know that jobs move, jobs change, requirements change, expectations change. It's not the old days of Bill White and Harvey Murphy and Homer Stevenson and all that bunch. Things have changed. The old idea -- and it was a good old idea at the time -- of a young man or woman learning one trade, going through a long indenture period, is all over. Young people grow up with a different approach to technology, for one thing. They're imbued with the whole technological world now. I wasn't; I won't be -- but they are. So they're capable. The capabilities are much expanded from the old days. So to say that you'll be indentured, that you'll take a number of years to reach your journeyman status. . . . Today the average apprenticeship age is 28 -- that's too old. I'm not saying that you can't be there when you're 28 or 35 or 40, but we should look at the average age for apprenticeship work and lower it.

As I mentioned before, only 5 percent of women. . . . Now, if I'm not right on that percentage, I'd like to be corrected. But I think that's about the latest stat that I've seen. So we have to look at that in terms of apprenticeship work.

Industry also has its responsibilities; this is not a one-way street. The days of the old boss in the striped pants and the top hat are gone. There must be a response to workers' ideas and suggestions. You have to have joint consultative mechanisms. They're essential for effective operation and a high level of productivity.

I'm personally associated with a company that in fact works this way, and it's not my past professional history. It's a small company with 25 or 30 people in it. They have regular meetings where management and labour get together and discuss how they're doing. They see the profit and loss sheet; they see the whole works. Then they make decisions based on whether or not they can meet targets. This is how you bring up productivity.

It boils down to the fact that each has a responsibility -- labour, management and government. I see it this way: labour has to support workplace innovation and collaborative strategy. I don't see any problem if labour does that. You can't stop innovation; you cannot stop technology. You think back to the old days of Cominco in Trail. They had thousands and thousands of workers there, and today they have about one-third of what they had back in the fifties. We don't like it, necessarily, but that's what's happening. So you have to learn to deal with innovation. And management has its responsibility. They have to share decision-making. They don't always do it, but that doesn't make it right. That's how companies that are successful move ahead.

Government has to pretty well keep its nose out of things. They can create the framework policies so that these things can happen. They should be able to supply resources for companies and workers to work together, they should be able to supply information, and they should supply incentives to management and investors.

There's nothing wrong with tax incentives if there's a direct return. It may not be a direct return; it may be more of an indirect return through training, so that we can. . . . If industry, for example, takes on a training component, tax incentives could be available to further a full commitment to the training schemes.

At the present time our training schemes are just a patchwork of colleges, companies and unions. We have programs here and there, but there's no real overall development that includes management, labour and education. ITAC is the framework, but ITAC cannot work in isolation from labour legislation. This is what really bothers me about this one-off type of legislation that we see in Bill 26. I really don't see the point of it when there's so much more to do in the whole field of labour, management and educational resources.

[5:45]

The key objectives of ITAC are, as I said before, the designation and expansion of trades and occupations, the development and delivery of high-quality and flexible programs -- I think we need flexibility in our programs today -- and the development and granting of relevant and linked credentials. You know, when you talk about credentialling, it's a sensitive issue. It's a very sensitive issue with unions. But, hon. Speaker, you cannot place highly skilled, multiskilled and multi-credentialled workers into old-style craft unions. You cannot place these well-trained people in situations. . . . When we observe the skilled workers of today, they are divided into about 16 trades, and they are inflexible. You can't be inflexible in this world today. It's just not going to work. That's what really bothers me about Bill 26, this one-off piece of legislation.

You should be able to have job sites where union members -- and that's fine -- are capable of doing multi jobs, not waiting around for one trade to come -- and if they're not there, you can't do anything, you're frozen, and in the meantime costs climb, productivity goes down and investment dollars leave. Unions are going to have to adapt and change their organizational structure.

I really would like to ask the members across what is really so wrong -- and this is a serious question -- with wall-to-wall unions and industrial unions. As far as I can see, the thing that's really wrong is that they're out. They're out of the big organization and not in. All we are doing here is going on

[ Page 9827 ]

Noting the time, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. P. Priddy: I move the House do now stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and sit thereafter until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:50 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)

J. Weisgerber: It was, and is, my intention to continue the discussions around the agreement-in-principle with McLeod Lake. I had intended to go through it in order, but in looking at it over the lunch hour, it seemed to me to make more sense, given that we've been talking about land, land selection and those issues specifically surrounding land, to move ahead to section M of the agreement, which deals with the whole issue of land in severalty.

Again, I'm sure the minister is familiar, but perhaps for the benefit of others. . . . With the original treaties, as I understood them, at treaty-signing day there were in essence two lines. There were those people who wanted to take land in common, which became reserve lands. Those people, on the basis of 128 acres -- the formula -- become part of the community. There was another lineup of people who decided to become what was termed at the time "enfranchised." The essence of that was that they became voting citizens, as opposed to registered Indians. Many would argue, looking at it today, that they were in essence being disenfranchised. Nevertheless, as governments are wont to use language, these folks were said to have been enfranchised. They were allowed to take 160 acres of land severally, in their own names. That has been the cause of an enormous amount of debate among aboriginal people on the Prairies. Some who see themselves as being aboriginal but without status have difficulty relating that to a decision to become enfranchised that might have been made 100 years earlier by one of their ancestors.

It's interesting that this issue of land and severalty comes back in this agreement. I understand why it has to, but I'm particularly interested in the mechanism. I understand -- and I hope I understand it correctly -- that McLeod Lake band members are able to take land severally in the amount of 160 acres, but that doesn't affect their status as it did 100 years ago. If my understanding of that is correct, they continue to have status. The lands continue to be reserve lands, which is quite dramatically different than was the case 100 years ago.

I wonder if the minister, beyond that sort of very superficial understanding of what is happening here with the option to take land severally. . . . I also understand that in this case the land has been calculated on the 128-acre formula, but any land taken severally in the amount of 160 acres would be deducted. It seems to me that that's a somewhat different mechanism than with the original treaty-making, where those folks who wanted to take land in common were identified, and those people who took land severally were dealt with using a different process. It seems to me that it somewhat disadvantages the band members to have all of the land put in at 128 acres and then taken out at 160 acres.

But it's a fascinating wrinkle; I think it's the first time -- that I'm aware of -- that any agreement has enabled an aboriginal person to take land and identify it as their own, but to continue to have that land identified as reserve lands and to continue to enjoy the benefits of status. That's quite a remarkable departure from the historical practice -- not necessarily in British Columbia, but in western Canada generally.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite correct in that analysis. I don't think it's nearly as superficial as he suggested. I think it's a good analysis, albeit it's a complicated problem. We grant that.

I am advised that our calculus is based on the notion, after discussions with the McLeod Lake band, that their conclusion is that few people are likely to take the severalty option. Therefore the difference between 128 and 160 acres is allowable, in their terms. We, the province, in our negotiation thus far, however, have reserved the right to say that if indeed there is too great a takeup -- sufficient that it will have an impact on the quantum of land and therefore be problematic for the deal -- then we may intervene and reconsider the option. It's based on an agreement between the parties at the moment that says we're all but sure that very few people will choose the severalty option. That's my understanding of where it sits at the moment.

To the other part of the member's question -- whether this is unique -- I think this is correct: this is unique. Susan Kelly has just arrived and is madly scribbling notes, so if I'm wrong in that, she'll certainly send me a note, and I can elaborate.

J. Weisgerber: What I need to get, to wrap my mind around, is the rationale for this rather significant departure from the original process. It seemed to me that there was a very clear choice that band members who were eligible band members in the late 1800s and early 1900s had to make. They had to decide on treaty-making day whether they were going to continue to be active band members or whether they were going to become, in essence, farmers who were, to a very large extent, integrated into society. If my understanding is correct: that the band wants to discourage this option and the province is uncomfortable with the option, and recognizing that this could set a precedent in future treaties -- or if not a precedent, then at least a point of great discussion -- I'm curious to know why there was this departure from the historic practice, why band members today weren't simply presented with the same options that signatories or non-

[ Page 9828 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The member and I have both made an error, I think, in our assumption and my acquiescing to the statement he made -- precipitately, as it seems. The lands held in severalty will not be reserve lands. Let me, if I might just elaborate exactly what this package looks like, for the sake of clarification. . . . I know the member said earlier that he would like to get a number of things on the record, so I will provide him with that information then.

The lands and severalty agreement works as follows. If a McLeod Lake Indian band member elects to have lands in severalty instead of lands held in common -- i.e., reserve lands -- Treaty 8 states that if they were to choose reserve lands, the member would receive 160 acres per person, which is, of course, an increase of 32 acres -- from 128 acres per person. Second, the reserve lands selected would then be reduced by 128 acres. Canada, B.C. and the McLeod Lake Indian band member would have to negotiate where the lands would be chosen. Moreover, the land would be conveyed to the individual and would not be reserve land. B.C.'s position, the Crown's position, is -- or our hope is -- that McLeod Lake Indian band members will choose lands held in common and have negotiated land selections with McLeod Lake Indian band in Canada on that basis.

Second, however, it is part of Treaty 8 that if there are individuals who select lands in severalty, once a cost-sharing deal is negotiated on the additional 32 acres per person, then B.C. is willing to negotiate with the member and with Canada in order to fulfil the treaty obligation. That's the official position, as it were. I hope that's some help.

[2:45]

Hon. D. Lovick: This is complicated but fascinating. Under the treaty, the federal government apparently has that reserve right to decide whether or not land can be disposed of. Therefore there is, in effect, a covenant on it. So it isn't quite the same as fee simple. As we understand fee simple, you can do whatever you want with your property. But because there is that federal power still out there which hasn't been taken away, in that sense, then, it's not quite the same as fee simple. I hope that it's clear. I'm not sure it's clear to me, but I hope it is.

J. Weisgerber: It continues avenues for examination.

If I understand, then, the treatment of the severalty lands is not exactly the same as it was 100 years ago, because I think 100 years ago it was pretty clear that the lands were fee simple lands. They were in essence the equivalent of homestead lands without the requirement to prove up. So while a settler might move in, take a block of land -- several quarter sections, which is 160 acres -- prove up that land and get ownership, those aboriginal people who decided to become enfranchised, as I understand history, got immediate, unreserved possession of the 160 acres of land. They were essentially given what settlers had to prove up to obtain.

I don't have any argument. I mean, they were original peoples. There's no argument that they should have to prove up. But unless my understanding of history is wrong, they did in fact get unreserved, unclouded title to their land -- not necessarily in British Columbia, although there may have been instances in British Columbia, but certainly in the Prairies, central Alberta, etc.

We'll have an opportunity to. . . . If that's the case, then, while there is a difference in the way that the land issue is handled. . . . I'm still not clear in my mind whether it's reserve land with a certificate of possession to the family or in fact fee simple land with a caveat on it; the AIP simply isn't clear on that. But whichever the case is, I think it's fairly obvious that the way the band members themselves are treated is quite significantly different than in history. Historically, they and anybody in their family basically ceased to be band members. I think it's clear from this agreement -- at least in my mind -- that McLeod Lake Band members deciding to take land severally continue to have band membership. So that is quite a significant departure from the historical position.

I wonder: is there more that I should or might know about this arrangement, because it seems to me that it's a fascinating departure from. . . . It's treaty adhesion with significant modifications, and it's moving into an area of severalty lands, which I don't think we've ever seen before.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is quite correct, in terms of the broader historical story and how the system worked. He is not correct, however, with regard to Treaty 8. Treaty 8 is silent on the matter of enfranchisement. That did not apply in Treaty 8.

Let me quote to the member the appropriate section of the original treaty. Just a sentence will suffice: ". . .Her Majesty undertakes to provide land in severalty to the extent of 160 acres to each Indian, the land to be conveyed with a proviso as to non-alienation without the consent of the Governor General in Council of Canada. . . ."

I think I'm mixing two different items there, but the point is made, in any event. The member is quite right that this is something of a departure, but it's not a radical departure. As I said, Treaty 8 was silent on that particular issue. It simply points out the uniqueness of Treaty 8.

J. Weisgerber: Without attempting to string this out longer than is necessary, I wonder if the negotiators, on behalf of British Columbia or Canada, went back to track any of those lands taken in severalty to find out how they were disposed of. Could one go to northern Alberta and find a tract of land that had been taken in severalty that was still in possession of some ancestor of the original landholder? Or, in fact, have all of them been alienated, with the consent of government, over the last century?

Hon. D. Lovick: I was given some information, and I asked for an explanation of the information -- thus the delay.

My understanding is that. . . . Just a second, I've confused myself here. The particular issue we were grappling with had to do with. . . . I'm embarrassed; I apologize.

An Hon. Member: You shouldn't stay up so late.

Hon. D. Lovick: I know. Sleep deprivation does have an effect on one, I guess. My apologies.

There is indeed some historical research being done on just that subject, and it looks at the Alberta comparables as well as any other sources we have. The question I posed when I heard that that was happening was: why? The reason is

[ Page 9829 ]

J. Weisgerber: To finalize the discussions on this severalty issue, I must say that it's informative and useful to find out what's happening with it, because for me, at least, it's a fascinating area.

I note under subsection M(10) that once the decision is made to accept land in severalty, there is an impact on cash and infrastructure. I'm wondering: is this a partial disenfranchisement of the people who choose land severally? Does it mean that these people are not entitled to the full benefits of band membership in terms of sharing in the cash, or does it mean that the community simply gets less cash as a result of the decision by some of their members to take land in severalty?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer I am given to the question is that those individuals will be given all the same benefits as others. As well, they will get the same share of the total cash allotment. The reference is simply that the federal government is released from any obligation to do improvements to that property, so nobody will go and build a school or something like that on the property.

J. Weisgerber: I'd now like to take a little bit of time to try and sort out probably the most confusing part of this agreement for me, and that is section I, which deals with past claims and cash settlement -- which seem perhaps strategically to have been lumped together in order to make it difficult to sort them out. I would have been fascinated had they been separated, because I think. . . .

Let me first try and explore the notion of cash component -- as opposed to, as I said, cash settlement. In schedule A, attached to the agreement-in-principle, are some words that include sections from the old Treaty 8, which spelled out, in addition to the land, what band members were entitled to. It was clearly a reflection of a century ago. On signing, the chief was entitled to $32, a limited number of headmen were entitled to $22 and every other band member to $12, to be followed annually by $25 for the chief, a somewhat smaller amount for the limited number of headmen, and $5 for each band member. I'm old enough to remember that that money was normally paid on July 1. In the Prairies, where I lived, people used to travel enormous distances to go for treaty money. It was a very colourful event. It brought together people in north-central Alberta at Lac la Nonne or Lac Ste. Anne, I think it was. People travelled from 100 miles away by wagon and made quite a big summer event of it.

Nevertheless, the band members were entitled to this cash, which was significant. If one looks back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, $5 in hard cash was serious money; $10 and $25 and those larger amounts were significant amounts of money.

[3:00]

What I'm trying to do, in my own clumsy way, is to try and separate out of this $9.3 million how much of it is the modern-day equivalent of the cash for the chief and the band members and the agricultural tools, the cows, the bulls, the team of oxen and the horses, etc. How much of that $9.3 million represents that kind of updated compensation? I guess I'm particularly concerned that the remaining amount represents compensation for past claims. Again, I think we're then into an area that, in my opinion, we haven't moved into in British Columbia before. It seems to me that Nisga'a deliberately stayed away from this concept of trying to compensate members for past wrongs or lost resources -- that whole thing. This appears to be another wrinkle along with, and perhaps to a greater degree than, severalty that's coming out of this fascinating document.

Having jumped ahead to past claims, can we focus first on this notion of a cash component or a modern-day equivalent to those things that I discussed earlier?

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, I should make clear that all of that money is coming from Canada -- the entire $9.3 million. Indeed, the member is quite right. Section I of the agreement makes very clear that it's essentially allocated in three chunks -- the three reasons for it. Subsection I(1)(b): ". . .in satisfaction of Canada's obligations to McLeod Lake under those provisions. . . attached. . .in schedule A. . . " the sum of $500,000. So it's the $500,000 for the replacement -- I take it -- of the dollars for each individual, for the axes, saws, augers, cows, plows, etc., as well as, of course, the silver metal in the flag -- as you recall, in the original. . . . The other money, of course, will be allocated between the other two subs.

The remainder of that money has to be divided essentially in terms of the past claims -- so-called extinguishment -- and the socioeconomic development of the band. That's a sum of money that will essentially be determined by negotiation. . . and the feds essentially negotiated with the McLeod Lake Indian band.

In terms of whether this is not so much precedential, but whether this in fact is breaking new ground and will be different from anything else because of, as you say, the compensation for past claims, the member is right to raise the question, because it is, I think, unique and stands out. I think the answer is simply that we mustn't forget that we are dealing here with an old treaty and an adhesion to a treaty. In modern-day treaties, as the member quite correctly points out, we don't address that. At least, in Nisga'a we don't -- and likely wouldn't in others either. We have argued the case that the land and the treaty itself -- or the land, at least, from our perspective in British Columbia -- is in fact our payment for a past. . . .

J. Weisgerber: I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my mind around the difference for. . . . Without necessarily trying to hold Nisga'a up in one hand and McLeod Lake up in the other, I'm wondering why McLeod Lake, arguably receiving a rather generous land allocation even by Nisga'a standards, would be deemed to be eligible for cash compensation for past claims, as opposed to Nisga'a. I haven't done the mathematics, and I probably should. Maybe somebody here who's quick with a pencil could help me figure out, on the basis of $9.3 million and 387 members, what that works out to in per-

[ Page 9830 ]

Having argued that, I'm not sure I can understand. . . . There's nothing in the treaty that says that you should be entitled to a past claim. We are in the midst of a treaty-making process that I think is very much a parallel, so I need information. I need to know what the rationale would be. Maybe it's the way that it's described. Maybe I would have had less of a problem with it if somebody had told me that the farm tools and implements, the silver medals and the uniforms added up together to $9.3 million, and away you go. Maybe I would have had less trouble wrapping my mind around that than I do with half a million dollars making up a cash equivalency and some $8.8 million, arguably, for past claims and socioeconomic development.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to quote from the original Treaty 8 again, if I might, which I think will make the point. I'm sorry, I don't think I can give a paragraph number or something to the member, but at some point, I can share it with him, if need be. Okay?

J. Weisgerber: I've got that.

Hon. D. Lovick: Yeah, but I mean to refer to the particular passage. In the passage I want to refer to, the phrase is as follows: "In extinguishment of all their past claims, she" -- i.e., Her Majesty -- "hereby through her commissioners agrees to make each chief a present of. . . ." Then it lists all those things: the saws, the plows, etc., etc. I think the key in this is that the emphasis isn't on past claims; it's rather on extinguishment. In other words, this is the end of it. That's done -- right? So that's what the money is for. That's why that extra infusion of cash.

I know you can argue that that's a semantic point, but it seems to me that there's a legal argument in there too. This money is effectively saying: "You give us, in return for this, a guarantee that this case is over and nobody is going to be back again asking for something more and claiming another right." I think that's essentially the answer.

J. Weisgerber: It may well be semantics, but it seemed to me that if you make that argument the minister has just made -- that the saws and the plows and the hoes and the cows -- were payment in extinguishment, you would then expect to look at the agreement-in-principle and see under section I(1)(b) that in fact the $9 million was the equivalent of that amount. But this agreement says that no, the cash equivalent today of what is referred to in the old treaty is only half a million dollars. But there is a total payment of $9.5 million, and that's why I would have been more comfortable had it said under subsection (b), that $9 million of this is in equivalent payment.

Someone was kind enough to do a calculation. It looks like the cash component is about $24,000 per person, as opposed to the $35,000 discussed in Nisga'a, and the land component is 123 acres, versus the roughly 85 acres that I recall in Nisga'a. Those numbers cause me to think that perhaps other bands, when they do their arithmetic, may well decide that this isn't such a bad deal after all, but that's obviously a decision for them to make.

I don't know if I can or even want to pursue it a lot further, but it looks to me like the agreement-in-principle says: "Look, we're giving you $8 million or hereabouts for past claims" -- not for extinguishment, because the payment for extinguishment appears to be dealt with in subsection (b). Subsection (b) says that it is the modern-day equivalent of those things that the minister just read out as payment for extinguishment.

Hon. D. Lovick: The old treaty tracks two things. One is that one-time payment for extinguishment, but then there's another series of payments on an annual basis. That is certainly more compatible with the modern variation. Second, I want to read into the record, if I might, what the AIP says. I think it's clearer by simply reading it in:

"Canada will pay to McLeod Lake the total sum of $9.3 million within 30 days of the execution of the final agreement, failing which reasonable interest will be paid. . .to address the following matters" -- and note that they're separate -- "(a) in extinguishment of all the past claims of McLeod Lake; (b) in satisfaction of Canada's obligations to McLeod Lake under those provisions of Treaty No. 8, which are attached and underlined in schedule A, for which the collective sum of $500,000 is allocated from the above amount; and (c) for socioeconomic development of McLeod Lake."

I think that clarifies that there are three categories. The extinguishment of all past claims is the issue, and the $500,000 is devoted to those particular and very specific treaty entitlements. Maybe that's the key: treaty entitlements versus past claims.

J. Weisgerber: I would have a totally different interpretation. If one goes to the original treaty, to where the minister reads "in extinguishment of all their past claims. . .each chief a present of. . . ." That's the exact language that's spelled out in schedule A. It is schedule A to which is referred, under section I(1)(b). . . . It's exactly the same language. It's pretty clear, if you follow it, that, according to this AIP, $500,000 is the price of extinguishment. The rest of it, then, has to be either past claims or socioeconomic development. You have some $8.8 million that is new to that agreement, as opposed to an updating and modernization of the treaty. That's the way I would read it. I think I'm right. Maybe, at the end of the day, we'll just have to disagree on it. I don't know.

[3:15]

Canada's policy for treaty adhesion. . . . Specific claims were apparently $25,000 per person. The member's quite right in his calculation.

J. Weisgerber: I don't think it serves us well to try to go beyond this. I appreciate the point that it's Ottawa, it's Canada, that is providing these moneys. It will be Canada that provides cash components in comprehensive treaties. Perhaps if Ottawa ever allowed opposition members to have this kind of examination of their agreements, it's something that members in Ottawa might want to pursue. I don't think we can, and I'm not particularly interested in trying to argue that the money is too much or too little. People will have their own opinions about it. I will only go back to say that it was pretty clear to me that the general quantums were understood when

[ Page 9831 ]

I want to conclude by talking about the certainty-language issue. Although it's not covered in the AIP -- with the exception of section A, I think, which says that Treaty 8 applies, and that unless there is some reference to the contrary, Treaty 8 is going to apply. I think it commendable that the province, the band and Ottawa could wrap their minds around accepting the existing certainty language in the treaty. I'll read it: ". . .said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of the Dominion of Canada for Her Majesty the Queen and her successors forever all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to the lands included within the following limits. That is to say . . . ." Then it goes on to provide a description of the geography involved under Treaty 8.

I think the fact that the McLeod Lake band was prepared to allow that language to continue, perhaps with some resistance on their part, and the fact that the province maintained that language, is certainly commendable. I think it's interesting that Ottawa, which is often described as the party that has the greatest problem with that kind of language, in the face of all the changes that were made in this treaty. . . . And I think that's the key. It's not the fact that the treaty was simply applied, but it appears to have been looked at line by line. In some areas the land quantum should continue. With the issue of severalty, the changes are perhaps modest, more modest than I had originally thought they would be. With respect to mineral rights, there is obviously quite a significant departure. With respect to the Forest Practices Code, there is a rather dramatic change. With respect to cash compensation, there's a very clear modernization of the treaty. Still, this language survives through the agreement. I think that's noteworthy. I think it's important to recognize that treaties can continue to be signed with that kind of treaty language.

It was, of course, only a decade ago that the Yukon Territory used basically the same Treaty 8 language in its settlement of comprehensive land claims. So my hat's off to the negotiators on all three parts in their ability to find an agreement that has significant changes but that maintains what I think is critical to the treaty-making process, and that is clear, understandable and supportable extinguishment language. As much as anything else. . . . I give full credit to the band and the band members for the work they did in their community.

I think one of the things we understood when we were up talking to people about this agreement was that they understood also that it was a final settlement -- that it was an issue that had been carrying on very actively, at least, since 1982 and, of course, had been an issue since 1899 -- and that it was being put to rest at some significant cost to taxpayers, some significant cost in terms of the transfer of access to resources. I don't think there's anything lost. Different people have different accesses. The trees are still there; the minerals are still there. But nevertheless, the community was able to wrap its mind around the package. I don't want to overstate this, but my views on certainty language are well known. I think it's absolutely critical to successful treaty-making. I think this is a pretty clear example of how that can be concluded using old language in a modern-day context.

Then there's the final thing I want to deal with, having kind of gotten that out of the way. I think there are some questions that go beyond the certainty language. That is, if you have the treaty in front of you, about four paragraphs down from the section that deals with the cede, release, surrender and yield-up sections is the agreement for the continued hunting-trapping rights.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

In the surrender language of the old treaties, I think it's important to understand that the bands weren't giving up their traditional rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather -- although when you read into it "saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes," I'm not sure that, at least originally, the bands anticipated quite the degree of settlement that occurred in many of the areas.

But nevertheless. . . . I guess what I'm seeking to confirm is that there aren't other agreements -- sort of satellite or side agreements to the agreement-in-principle -- that deal in some way with respect to that right to hunt, fish and trap as formally, that the old language applies across the board both with respect to cede, surrender and release and with respect to ongoing rights to hunt, fish and trap.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me state categorically there are no side agreements or anything -- okay? There is nothing like that. I think that is the answer the member wants.

I just want to make the point that the member makes and maybe just draw a conclusion from it. I think what he said is quite correct. In old treaties with cede, release and surrender language, as we have discovered now, that does not mean the end of aboriginal rights outside the treaty area -- okay? That's what the great debate has been. It seems to us that one of the principal advantages of modern-day treaties is that we will indeed clarify very specifically what those rights are and how far they extend. The member will recall that that's what the Nisga'a AIP does, among other things. Ironically, we think that that provides a greater level of certainty than the language that everybody thought was the solution to all of our problems. We think the modern treaty, in fact, will give us better models in terms of certainty and in terms of how we interact with first nations people and truly share the land.

J. Weisgerber: In conclusion, I want to thank the minister and his staff for the information. For me, at least, it's been an interesting couple of hours.

With respect to certainty, I think there are arguments about which language is better. Being a bit of a traditionalist I suppose, 100 years of history, although not perfect. . . . When one looks at that century of experience in areas where there were treaties and compares that with a jurisdiction like British Columbia, where there weren't, then it seems to me that on that test, at least, that certainty language served everybody pretty well. Whether or not we can develop better language in the next go-around remains to be seen. I can only say that we're only a decade or less into this thing, and ten years ago this was still the language of choice. Quite honestly, as I wrack my brain, I can't find the event that changed that. I can't find the happening that caused the parties to suddenly decide that that hundred years' worth of language was now unacceptable. Perhaps we will never know.

I know that there are other members with lots of other questions to ask, and again I want to thank everyone for the completeness of the answers. I certainly understand the agreement a little better.

V. Anderson: I'd like to ask a few questions about the First Citizens Fund. I presume it's still in operation. Could the

[ Page 9832 ]

[3:30]

The First Citizens Fund, I am happy to report, is still alive and well. The '98-99 budget is $2.9 million; in 1997-98, actual expenditure was about $2.8 million. The bulk of the money is used for business loans. The amount allocated in '98-99 is $1.77 million. The other categories for which the money is used are: friendship centres, student bursaries, elders transportation, business loan administration, advisory support, achievement awards and what is called the Native Economic Development Advisory Board. That's a quick overview of the First Citizens Fund.

V. Anderson: Could you indicate for me how many bursaries have been used, and what the process is for making this known or advertised so that others may know to apply? Has that number gone up or gone down?

The third part of the question -- namely, the advertising of. . . . I don't know if I have any detail on it, but I guess simply using the friendship centres for off-reserve. . . . As well, I think, probably on a fairly regular basis, the native bands and band councils would be advised of the existence of these things. I think we probably also advise the colleges and institutes and so forth. Certainly I have seen that a number of these letters have gone out from me congratulating people, and it's a nice mix in terms of geographical distribution -- everything from the north Peace all the way down to southern Vancouver Island and the Kootenays. It's a nice mix, so it seems to me that people are well and truly aware of the program and the availability of those bursaries. If that's not the case, I would certainly be happy to hear that -- not happy to hear, but I would like to know that, with a view to saying: how can we do it better?

V. Anderson: I'm interested in that. I was on the legislative committee that toured the province at one time with the First Citizens Fund. I was interested and at that time discovered that there was very little awareness of the bursary fund. If there are only 125 students using it, that would say to me either that there is a capped amount for that fund at 125 students -- however that works out as a certain amount -- and that it is therefore limited by the amount of money that is given for the bursary program. I'd be interested in knowing what the available total is for the bursary program, whether it's capped or whether there is. . . . With all the need out there, and the opportunity. . . . I'm sure that there are more than 125 who would like to use it, so we know that they're not getting the information, the process isn't working or the fund is capped at that. If you're giving it to the friendship centres to work, are you giving them a capped amount of funds to work with?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is that the fund is indeed capped. The amount of money, which I believe has been constant for the last two fiscal years, is $125,000. I should just advise the member that since assuming this responsibility in this ministry, I have seen so many things that I find exciting and interesting and absolutely worthy of financial support, but alas, we're just not in a position to do as much as we would like. We are therefore in constant discussion with our federal counterparts, of course, to suggest that we could use a little more help here.

I could give the member the example of the Institute of Indigenous Government Studies, which he is probably familiar with. Alas, we had money at one point coming from the feds as well to help us with that, and suddenly that disappeared. I'm happy to say that with some major struggle and a little sweat, we were able to keep that funding going. I don't think I can say the same for a number of other programs that we have in the past been able to support, unless we get some miraculous new source of money. I am going much beyond the member's question, but it gives me an opportunity to make the point, so I hope he'll allow me that.

V. Anderson: I am interested, because I know about the Institute of Indigenous Government Studies and persons who have been involved in that, and I think that that's a good program. What I'm really concerned about are the persons who, in order to take their place in the expanding opportunities of the community, do need the training to do that. I wonder about the kind of priority being placed in investment -- whether investment in people, in students, would have a balance with investment in organizations and financial development. I know they're both important, but for many in the financial development. . . . What portion of the fund is now going into investment and development processes, and what is the process? Through whom is that money being funnelled at the moment?

Hon. D. Lovick: The program the member refers to is what we refer to in the budget allocation as business loans. It's the hugely majority portion of the total budget allocation in the First Citizens Fund. Let me just give a quick backgrounder on what we refer to as the aboriginal relations branch, under which this particular fund is administered.

They facilitate 124 loans to aboriginal businesses, loaning a total of $4.3 million through the business loan program. I guess that's the ongoing or cumulative. . . . They provided 125 student bursaries, as we talked about, which totalled $148,000. As well, there are the other things I referred to -- the elders organizations and assistance to friendship centres.

There was a major initiative in '98-99 that the member probably wants to know about -- namely, the transfer of the administration of the business loan program, which provides 40 percent loan guarantees, to an organization called the All Nations Trust Co. I think that's the answer that the member was asking for.

V. Anderson: Is the minister saying that the 40 percent, or the $4.3 million. . . . I'm just trying to add up the figures. If I

[ Page 9833 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The $2.9 million figure is the budgeted amount for '98-99. The $4.425 million is the gross loans provided cumulatively, calculated as of '98-99.

V. Anderson: Thank you. How much capital is in that fund at the moment, in total? Is the minister saying that the portion of that capital, which presumably is the interest on it. . . ? Is that the money that's being transferred to the All Nations Trust fund for them to dispense for these investment programs? Is that correct?

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes.

V. Anderson: How much money is still in the capital fund? What's the amount in the capital fund at the moment?

Hon. D. Lovick: The estimated total account balance at the end of this fiscal year is $34.1 million.

V. Anderson: So it's somewhat under 10 percent, roughly, according to the investment interest that's available to go out for these different projects in the current year. The fund is relatively balanced to where it was over the last two or three years.

In the fund, I would just like to encourage -- and put a plug in for the student portion of the fund -- that that might be reviewed, because I think it's that opportunity to have the basic skills which enables young people, or even some older people who need to go back, to complete their education. It's not just young people. They need go back and complete their education, which often gets overlooked, so I would like to encourage that to be examined and reviewed periodically.

Changing the topic for a moment, the minister mentioned the aboriginal committee that looks after these. Is this an interdepartment aboriginal committee? What is it? You mentioned an aboriginal committee, and I only partly wrote it down.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: The aboriginal relations committee? What is the nature of that committee and its function, and how is it formed?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear. When I referred to aboriginal relations, I was referring to the department within the ministry. That is a particular section of the ministry.

V. Anderson: There was, at one time, an interministerial aboriginal committee. Does that still exist? If so, what is its function at this point?

Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, indeed. As a matter of fact, it's somewhat beyond what it used to be. We have a deputies' committee which tends to grapple with the larger problems -- the corporate agenda, as it were -- like Delgamuukw and what one does about that and to coordinate the positions of all the ministries and how they function. There is also an assistant deputies' committee that deals with the more ongoing problems of service delivery and so forth.

What I said in my opening remarks was that the ministry has been modified or transformed somewhat in the recent past so that it is now essentially in the business of treaty making, but the role that the ministry has in an advisory and advocacy kind of capacity with the other ministries is a significant one, albeit one that doesn't manifest itself in budgetary items. We do, however, work very closely with Health, Human Resources and Education.

The point I made in my opening, and I certainly don't intend to give the same speech again, is that what I think is exciting and interesting and encouraging is that aboriginal or first nations issues are now essentially ubiquitous. They're clearly a major part of every ministry, and just about every ministry now has, in effect, an aboriginal affairs section mindful of its responsibilities and obligations. I think that is the right way to go, frankly, and I'm pleased by it.

[3:45]

Moving from that topic, briefly, into another similar one in a relationship. . . . What is the purpose and function and emphasis of the programs of the multicultural relations of this ministry at this point? Moving into the multicultural area and the report that you give, by legislation, each year to the multicultural committee, what is the multicultural focus and emphasis in this current year for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs?

Hon. D. Lovick: I must confess that I had no idea what the member was referring to -- thus the delay. The explanation for that is that this is very internal stuff he's referring to -- namely, the policy whereby every ministry, I gather, goes through the appropriate motions of making a report on the status of its efforts to further and to recognize the reality of the multicultural community we live and work in. I gather that the thrust of our ministry's submission to that is very much to simply do what we can by way of consciousness-raising, shall I call it, that this is indeed a legitimate part of that cultural fabric and that we have some obligation to be sensitive to and understanding of it, and perhaps indeed to further our awareness and appreciation of that culture.

I'm sure the member opposite -- I know something of his background -- will know as well as I that other parts of the multicultural spectrum are very good, if you like, at making sure that we all know who they are and that their interests are well and truly advanced. First nations culture historically tends to be more passive. I think the obligation, therefore, is probably all the greater for us to tell others: "Let's not forget our first citizens, because they too have something extremely important to offer in that fabric."

V. Anderson: One of the reasons for asking the question is to make sure the minister knows that this program is there and to encourage it to have a very high profile. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: You did.

[ Page 9834 ]

Having put that out there, I won't put you on the spot as to whether you are or not, because I'm sure that tomorrow you will be. If you need the address, I'll provide it to you.

Interjection.

V. Anderson: No conflict; I'm not directly connected with it anymore.

One of the concerns I have -- and I raise it particularly here, in Aboriginal Affairs -- is that the community at large -- and also among many in the aboriginal community, and properly so -- has not considered them as part of the multicultural community, because they stand in a unique relationship, being the first citizens here. I think there is good reason for that, and I would support that approach. But because of that, there is more need for the interpretation and the opportunity to share in the multicultural aspects of our total governmental activities in order that the uniqueness of the contribution of the aboriginal community is heard and seen in the other areas. I'm asking what kind of contribution is made not only within the ministry but also by the Aboriginal Affairs ministry to the multicultural approach of the total government, to take this special message to the community overall. I wonder if the minister can comment on that in some senses.

Hon. D. Lovick: The answer to the question is that a whole bunch of things happen, but there's nothing like a formal program. I'll give just a couple of examples, if you will, of the sorts of things we do. We certainly made a point in a rather small communications exercise to promote National Aboriginal Day, to heighten people's awareness of that. In our discussions with various people, among others the spiritual leaders' conference -- which, as Vancouver-Langara knows full well, is multicultural, which I find exciting, by the way. . . . But to talk about it, the last meeting that I attended, for example, was all about Nisga'a and about trying to say: "This belongs to all of us." I'm happy to report that this group certainly embraced that vision. British Columbia hosted the aboriginal games not too very long ago, the member will recall.

I talk on a fairly regular basis with my cabinet colleagues -- pretty regularly -- reminding people on everything that comes across the table: "Well, what about first nations people? Have you indeed accommodated that reality?" So in that sense, I think there is a pretty clear commitment. I think one could even be fairly specific and concrete about that. But as I say, there isn't some very specific program or anything like that. Given current constraints, I'm not sure I could see the likelihood in the foreseeable future of setting up something more formal. But I appreciate the point made.

V. Anderson: One more point I'd make, following up on that, not so much. . . . I'm aware of some of the programs and things you're talking about. I'm not so much aware of the nature and number of the programs, because programs in themselves. . . . What I'm more concerned about is the philosophical approach -- carrying the philosophical approach of the aboriginal people through the Aboriginal Affairs ministry, if you like, as something which is inherent in the ministry rather than something that's outside of the ministry. Then the ministry is struggling with the rest of the administration with the same struggle that the aboriginal people have with government generally -- leading the role there.

If I can explain the thinking a little bit there, I could try to get at. . . . I think the minister commented about aboriginal people being passive, and that's one way non-aboriginal people would describe it. But aboriginal people are very active; they're not passive. They're very sensitive, very much involved and very intuitive, and they have a different way of thinking out of their. . . . It is more like a Jewish or Asian heritage than what we think of as Western culture.

But I think that process of thinking is very fundamental in our being able to enter into negotiations. I give an illustration, for instance, of one mayor that phoned me when I was critic for the Aboriginal Affairs ministry, being so angry because. . . . His words were very frustrating, and they burned the wires up a bit. But he was very angry, because he said the aboriginal people have it both ways. They negotiate in their way of negotiating around the table, in a consensus model, and they're very good at it. Then they negotiate with the others the non-aboriginal way, in the confrontational way, and they've very good at that. He said: "They get it going both ways." His point was that he wasn't able to do it himself. He didn't have that kind of understanding, that ability to move from one to the other and therefore was at a disadvantage.

I think that a lot of our processes in working, supporting and being part of the aboriginal desires is our limitation in us not being able to move into their realm as they move into our realm. It would seem to me that of all the ministries, the Aboriginal Affairs ministry is the one that should be giving leadership to the government right across the processes.

If you're going to work in education, you have to work with that understanding. It wasn't the religious schools that were the problem; it was the philosophy behind the schools. I'm not sure the philosophy has changed. Therefore aboriginal children who come into our school system have teachers who mean well and try hard but haven't been given the opportunity to understand the differences in process and thinking that therefore they're at a disadvantage as well as the students. If you're working with health care and justice with aboriginal people, it's the same kind of thing. Aboriginal justice comes from a different process altogether than our non-aboriginal justice. It seems to me that a lot of our stumbling blocks. . . .

When I ask who would give leadership to help us overcome that collectively, then I'm afraid I come back to the Aboriginal Affairs ministry and say that it is the body that, in a sense, is mandated from government to give that leadership. Without that leadership, we're continually going to have the problem, whether it's in social work, education, health, justice or in treaty-making. Unless we have that thinking process and understand that we have to move from one to the other, back and forth, and appreciate it, then I think we're creating the roadblocks that we're trying to solve. I would like to challenge the Aboriginal Affairs ministry in that sense: to highlight the philosophical, spiritual and spiritual philosophical, and help the rest of government, in all of its functions, to undertake that and to let the aboriginal people teach us what we need to learn in order to live in the world of which they are a part. They have an insight and understanding of that world that we desperately need to receive. So when I ask about the multicultural or the aboriginal committee, I'm asking about two sides of the same discussion and how we share that. I just wanted to highlight that, and thank you for the opportunity of doing so.

[ Page 9835 ]

If I might every so briefly clarify. . . . By the way, I would say -- from my personal perspective, at least -- that, yes, we accept the challenge. I think it's an absolutely legitimate request to make. Moreover, I would agree with the member that we'd better do it if we want to thrive and flourish and do well one with the other.

[4:00]

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Back to my point about passivity, if I might. I think the member will appreciate that I want to be correctly understood. Let me give an example; anecdotal evidence will, I think, do well. I attended the Canada Day celebrations in my community not too long ago, as I'm sure other members in the chamber did. I was sitting next to a dear old friend of mine -- a guy named Bill Seward, who's an elder in the Nanaimo first nations. Bill and I were chatting, and I am one of those who have argued for a long time that Canada Day celebrations were pre-empted by a very narrow portion of the community -- what I used to refer to as the Anglican Church portion of the community -- well-meaning, decent people with the sense that they have the obligation to do good things for others, etc., but to do it very much on their terms and not to acknowledge that there are other cultures, realities and other visions that have legitimacy.

I was sitting there at this version of Canada Day in Nanaimo -- and like others I've been doing this for 12 years -- and it's the first time to my recollection -- perhaps the second; I could be wrong. . . . It's certainly a very recent phenomenon in our community that first nations people are integral to part of the ceremony and part of the platform. I said to my friend, Bill Seward, as we were sitting there on the stand: "Bill, isn't this remarkable, how things have changed? You're now on the platform. Isn't that remarkable. How many years did it take? How many years have we been doing this Canada Day celebration in Nanaimo?" It's about 20. This is the first or maybe the second, but one of the very few times that they were integrated into the community.

My point is this: they are absolutely not passive in terms of looking out for their own interests. No question, first nations do that very well. Otherwise they wouldn't have survived as they have. But in terms of that propensity to go out and say, "Wait a minute, I want to be recognized -- here I am," etc., that is broadly alien -- different from, and in that sense I meant passive. Again, in some ways it's wonderfully refreshing. It's kind of nice as opposed to the grasping and: "Here I am, and everybody should notice me."

The other point, just to illustrate briefly: it's the same as when, as late as 1964, remember, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism travelled the country, and we had that elaborate report about 26 inches long in terms of volumes. I think most of us who were involved at that time looked at that and said that the devotion of attention to aboriginal or first nations people was almost like an afterthought. It got less attention. . . . They were simply ignored, quite frankly, in that whole huge process -- not, as the member quite correctly said a while ago, because anybody was mean-spirited but because they just didn't think of it. And first nations people put up with that for a very long time, largely, I think, because of patience, and they see the world through something more like geological time. "We've been here for a long time, and we're used to waiting," as I've heard people like Joe Gosnell and others say. For what it's worth, my sense is that we can benefit hugely from that experience as well, and I think that's the member's point about the nature of multiculturalism and first nations culture.

Finally, because I am going on longer than I perhaps should, I want to make the point that I agree with the member that multiculturalism is a wonderful concept. I think most of us endorse it pretty wholeheartedly. But we should not for a moment believe that first nations are just another "of." They are unique; they are special in that circumstance. I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying that and celebrating that. I think it's appropriate.

With that, I would suggest that perhaps we have a brief recess before we go on.

The Chair: One brief recess coming up.

The committee recessed from 4:04 p.m. to 4:09 p.m.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: I have given some considerable thought to this issue. I want to challenge the member somewhat, as carefully as I can, and with no intent to be critical.

Let me start by making the point that this discussion we have been having has been going on for some while. It's safe to say that it was cast in the framework of fiduciary responsibility. I think the member was, above all, asking: "Didn't the ministry have some kind of fiduciary obligation, as it were, with first nations people?" Am I correct in that? Is that an asserting premise? I ask the member that directly, through you, Mr. Chairman.

K. Krueger: Or, at least, couldn't that be subsequently argued by people who might feel they didn't get their share of benefits that might be paid over imminently?

Hon. D. Lovick: I accept the member's clarification. We went from that hypothetical question, framework, to the specifics, and the member laid out some things in some detail. The basic concern, contention, seemed to be whether the ministry might be part of negotiated arrangements, or treaties, which, on the one hand might, be good for the body politic of

[ Page 9836 ]

A Voice: Some.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member says some. Fine, that will make the point.

Second, certain families wield perhaps disproportionate power in certain bands -- that there is, in effect, a certain caste system in certain places. The member didn't say it now, but I believe yesterday he also made the point about having some concern about whether all first nations were capable of managing money. I think I'm correct that the member raised that question too. All of this was with the two contexts established. One had to do with fiduciary obligation and responsibility, and the second context was the member saying again and again: "I know this may condescending, and I know this may sound patronizing, and I don't mean it to be" -- and I'm sure he doesn't. But after reviewing this and thinking about it, I must conclude, in all frankness, that the observations do sound patronizing and condescending.

[4:15]

I am placed in this awkward position, because it seems to me that what treaty-making is about, ultimately, is trying to create a relationship based on equality and mutual respect. That doesn't mean that we're all the same, but it similarly doesn't mean that we say: "Well, we're not going to give you self-government rights because we think you might abuse them."

I would just remind the member that western civilization, which Gandhi once referred to as a contradiction in terms. . . . Western civilization's history, in fact, is the story of our white arrogance, believing that we knew best and that we had the answers and: "Don't you worry, we'll take care of you, because we're" -- implicitly, I guess -- "better, brighter, more aggressive or whatever than you are." That, in my mind, is simply unacceptable. It's absolutely unacceptable. Imperialism is an ugly phenomenon. Frankly, it doesn't matter a great damn whether Kipling and others like him, in talking about taking up the white man's burden, were well-intentioned or whether their French counterparts talking mission civilisatrice were well-intentioned, because they were -- just like the missionaries in many countries and communities were well-intentioned. But what they did was effectively say: "We will treat you as subordinate to us. Because we think we know better, we will tell you how life ought to be. We will tell you what kind of government you ought to have."

The British Columbia-specific illustration of that is the outlawing of the potlatch ceremony. We saw that as a heathen practice, as irresponsible behaviour among these first nations people. How dare they carrying on doing that! We'll outlaw that. The people who outlawed it -- and here's a good point. . . . I'm delighted, by the way, that my friend from Vancouver-Langara is here, because he may want to join this debate too. The people who did that weren't necessarily evil. I'm sure that most of them thought they were doing the right thing. They thought they were helping people. The tragedy is that they did it on the basis of their terms, their calculus, and the implicit assumption in their terms was that we are somehow better able to make decisions than you are, and therefore we will make them for you.

Alas, when I hear the member telling me about the problems with aboriginal women, because "they" apparently have a different way of regarding women than we do -- which I challenge, by the way -- or that you've got certain aboriginal communities out there where one family has dictatorial control over others or that there's a caste system. . . . Apparently the conclusion to all of that is that therefore we should not give them self-government or that we should not have treaties. If that is indeed what is being argued, I categorically, passionately and vehemently reject it.

I'm inviting the member to clarify, but I think, however, in all candour. . . . I don't think I'm overstating what I listened to last night for quite a while. I deliberately didn't respond. I deliberately didn't challenge any of that, because I wanted to listen. I will give the member my assurance that I will read Hansard very carefully. I went looking for it, but it wasn't published. If I err in any way, I will be the first to apologize. My calculus is that despite his claim -- and I'm sure he's well-meaning, and he has good intentions not to be condescending, not to be patronizing -- that is precisely what those comments were. I say that in as civil a fashion as I can, but I feel honour-bound to say that. I can't sit and not respond. That's my response to the member.

K. Krueger: It would serve us all well if the minister had read Hansard before he returned. Of course, in addressing any of these issues, one knows that the prospect is always there that for political motivation, someone will put the kind of twist on the entire line of questioning that the minister just did. It is far more of a concern to me that no aboriginal person thinks that I or any of my colleagues view them or their societies or the things that they do in condescending or patronizing ways. Obviously I will now have to go back and summarize what I was talking about yesterday, because the minister has chosen to engage in a pedagogical diatribe instead of answering the questions, as I hoped he would be prepared to do.

Nobody said anything about this member or the B.C. Liberals believing that it's inappropriate to be involved in treaty-making or that you shouldn't make treaties, as the minister just said twice. Nobody said that. What was actually said was that this seems to be one of those rare areas where the government and the opposition both view this as a moment in history when we have an opportunity to do something that we agree on, which is to deal with these longstanding issues. The points being made were with regard to the question of whether the people who are negotiating on behalf of aboriginal groups in these treaty negotiations -- and there are many of them underway, of course -- are necessarily legitimate representatives of the people they are negotiating on behalf of. One of the questions that I asked the minister -- and it was the last question that I asked the minister -- was:

[ Page 9837 ]

I suggested to the minister that there is wide disparity between aboriginal groups as to the level of sophistication, education and experience and their relative negotiating power with the government and within those groups. Whether the minister chooses to believe it or not or is familiar with the wide variety of situations or not, there are bands -- as he discussed yesterday -- that very much approach things as a collective. There are others where there is a really longstanding aristocracy or caste-style arrangement.

The minister and the province also have an obligation to the general population of British Columbia and Canada to make sure that when resources are going to be paid in settlement of treaties, it only has to be done once. Those resources shouldn't be turned over to potential representatives who later, it can rightfully be argued, were not the legitimate representatives of everyone in that aboriginal group, so that some people in the group receiving the benefits don't end up receiving their share. That's fundamentally wrong. Also, in the ultimate course of events, it will, I am sure, lead to the amount being paid out again with regard to their entitlement.

I think the minister understood all that yesterday. When those questions were put, it was in good faith that we had been working our way through to that point, and the minister seemed to be with me. So I don't appreciate the lecture that was just delivered, and I want to refute it on the record. There's no condescension or patronizing going on here; there's a concern for those individuals within aboriginal communities who may not be properly represented at the bargaining table. There's a concern that the minister seems to have a generalized opinion about the state of democracy and the way democracy is viewed and practised by people in aboriginal groups throughout British Columbia. There's a concern about the general population paying out a settlement that ultimately doesn't get to all the people it was supposed to get to and being liable to pay it again.

So I'll ask once again: what has this government done to investigate why aboriginal people rejected the Charlottetown accord, with its intent of establishing self-government? How is the minister ensuring that the right thing is being done in the treaty negotiations underway?

Hon. D. Lovick: I think the question, frankly, is not in any way connected to this ministry's obligations in terms of its budgetary allotments or in terms of its efforts to make treaties. I think there are many speculations as to why Charlottetown was rejected by first nations people, as it was by everybody else, many of whom also arguably would have benefited from it. The only thing I would suggest is that the common denominator in terms of the rejection of the Charlottetown accord was the rejection of the perceived elites. I suspect that happened in first nations communities just as everywhere else and that people in bands simply said, "We don't like what our leaders are telling us," as did their counterparts throughout the rest of Canadian society. Beyond that, though, I have no comment.

I would just like to say, though. . . . I was very careful and very cautious in terms of my comments; I was as civil as I could be. I will just say to the member that rather than pretending to have a continuing debate on that matter, let the record speak for itself. I will stand by my comments, and he can do the same. Anybody who wants to know can read that transcript of Hansard for the past couple of hours and find out for themselves. So let us agree to disagree.

K. Krueger: I think that's a good idea. I have read the transcript; the minister said that he hadn't.

One of the concerns I have, though, does directly bear on this issue of the province's current activities with regard to negotiating settlements. I take it, then, that since the minister doesn't think the outcome of the Charlottetown accord has anything to do with treaty negotiations, the province hasn't made any efforts to find out why aboriginal communities rejected that accord. Therefore I'd like to know how the minister feels that the province and British Columbians in general are safeguarded from our representatives and from what the minister just referred to as elites in the aboriginal groups, which I've referred to as a type of caste system and yesterday the minister referred to as a hereditary aristocracy. How are the province and British Columbians protected from their representatives entering into an agreement where those wrong systems -- from our point of view and potentially from the point of view of the people who voted in aboriginal communities against the Charlottetown accord -- are being perpetuated in the settlement?

What I mean by that is that if you have in control what the minister has referred to as an elite or an aristocracy -- and what I've referred to as a caste -- and substantial benefits are turned over in treaty settlements, and those funds are then diverted by those groups to their own benefit rather than to the benefit of everyone in the aboriginal group, then obviously we have a perverse result and don't actually have a settlement at all. Is the province doing anything to make sure that doesn't happen?

[4:30]

K. Krueger: Perhaps some do; others don't. It's tremendously naïve to say that they all do. It's just not the truth. All a person has to do is travel a little in British Columbia and meet some people to know that there are very different ways of administration, governance and observation of democracy in the varying bands. Perhaps we can talk about one example. During the travels of the select standing committee, some of the input received was from aboriginal women, who said: "Get this over with, and send our men home, because they're spending 200 nights a year in the Four Seasons Hotel."

The minister spoke yesterday about the fact that significant, huge portions of the settlements-that-will-be are already being spent on those expenses. There's concern in the general population that there'll be a temptation for the senior levels of government, which they will succumb to when they get down to the final strokes of negotiation, to just throw that money in. I gather it's $75 million or thereabouts. Perhaps the minister could give us the actual amount, if he knows it, of outstanding expenses.

[ Page 9838 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: I'd like to know who it was who spent 200 nights in a hotel. That's a bit aberrant, I suspect -- and also suspicious. For the member's information, most of the negotiations that are going on indeed occur in the territories. They occur in homes, in mobile homes, trailers and offices and sometimes in tents. It is not the case that the norm is. . . . I think what the member is perhaps thinking of is the leadership, the tripartite process, which occurs most of the time at the federal department office in downtown Vancouver and in some hotels around that area, but that is certainly not the norm.

K. Krueger: I'll quote the minister from yesterday, when he said that the first nations people who were involved in the treaty-making process were depleting their capital "at an alarming rate." So to answer the concern of the general population that I put to him moments ago: is the government, in the end, going to throw that money in -- top up the fund with that expense money? Or is the government going to stick with this position that it comes out of the final settlement, without throwing anything in?

Hon. D. Lovick: The money, the loans that are being racked up, will come out of the settlement. We have said that from the beginning. We will continue to say. . . . It's worth noting, by the way, that yesterday I had a discussion with the member's colleague, and we were talking about the need for incentives to make progress on negotiation. The example I gave, which indeed I believe he's quoting me on, is precisely that. I think that's an incentive in itself; the fact that if we carry on negotiating for as long -- forever, as sometimes seems to be the case -- there won't be anything left at the end of the day. First nations, it seems to me, are certainly mindful of that. They're as responsible and intelligent as anybody else, and they will recognize that that is simply not a sustainable, workable approach.

K. Krueger: The minister mentioned forgone opportunities in the long delays in settling treaties. This was from a British Columbia perspective as well as from the perspective of aboriginal people, I believe. Considering that -- again, from the point of view of all British Columbians -- along with the other issues that we've been working on this session -- the report of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, for example, which said that 20,000 jobs and over $1 billion a year in investment have been forfeited by the lengthy processes to deal with Crown land settlements and so on. . . . Applying that to the concerns that have hovered over Canada like a black cloud since the Delgamuukw decision came down from the Supreme Court of Canada, the absence of a clear statement by the province as to what Delgamuukw means to British Columbia has left a vacuum, it seems to me and to a lot of people, into which the consultant industry has rushed. They've capitalizing big-time.

I'm wondering when the government is actually going to issue a statement that really delineates what Delgamuukw is deemed to mean to British Columbia, or whether the government simply intends to leave it as a question to be worked out during the treaty negotiation processes.

Hon. D. Lovick: It's difficult to sit here and be implicitly accused of dithering or something, when indeed. . . . Let us remember that it was the provincial Crown that pushed for the tripartite process based on the observation that we weren't going as quickly as we ought and that things did need clarification. It is the provincial government that put forward the first proposal for accelerated land-cash resources. It is the provincial government that is still continuing to push for that, that is sitting down at the table right now -- with the federal government, with the First Nations Summit -- and attempting again to ensure that we can get something moving and be making some measurable and discernible progress.

It is also no secret that the provincial government did table a position. Indeed, members opposite have seen that position; their response was, I think, for the most part complimentary to what the provincial government was doing. We are back at the table negotiating with our counterparts, the federal government, and with the first nations. We are hopeful that we will in fact negotiate an agreement to proceed in a more expeditious and effective and efficient way. When we have succeeded in doing that, then the public statements regarding the position will be coming out.

For us to take a position without regard to the fact that we have agreed with the other two parties that we're negotiating a position would, I think, simply set us back another year. It's been frustrating. I share the member's frustration; I'm as frustrated as anyone. I also share the frustration so-called third-party interests, as well as first nations interests, throughout the province have expressed about what some have referred to as the paralysis of Delgamuukw. I think it's overstated, by the way. I don't think it's the case at all that everything stopped after December 11. Far from it. Indeed, I have shared with members opposite a huge long list of things that are going on not just in spite of Delgamuukw but perhaps in part because of Delgamuukw.

I would just make a final point -- namely, that the member made reference to the fact that the so-called loss of opportunity. . . . I'm sorry, that's not fair. The loss of opportunity of some $20 million in the Ministry of Environment, Land and Parks. . . . I would just point out to him that that delay is not attributable to Delgamuukw. Delgamuukw may play a part, but it is certainly not the cause of that happening. I think I made that point clear after some reasonably extended discussion with your colleague from Matsqui yesterday.

K. Krueger: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks regulatory red tape problems are part of the whole picture. I think we're saying the same thing there. When the minister says that everything didn't stop, he is certainly right with regard to the consultancy industry. They didn't stop at all. I think they have mushroomed. Aboriginal groups are being told, "The world is your oyster," as a result of Delgamuukw. "It all belongs to you." Self-serving people, racking up their billable hours, have rushed into the perceived vacuum to take that position. That problem manifests itself throughout our economy and throughout our economic prospects, and I will give the minister two examples.

I've been working on one with the Minister of Forests for over a year. It involves a gentleman named Al Bush in Barrière, who had a company named Chaps Enterprises, which

[ Page 9839 ]

When I have hiked in the Chilcotin, I've see where aboriginal people would peel the bark off trees a few feet above the base in order that the trees would dry and they would have standing firewood when they chose to camp there again. It's not necessarily an archeological item; it's just a practical item that they're probably still doing. These sorts of issues, compounded by the dramatic effect of the Delgamuukw decision, are leading to economic paralysis throughout our economy.

Sun Peaks, a major ski development near Kamloops. . . . The owner and operator, a Japanese gentleman who owns Nippon Cable in Japan, was well aware of the fact that there were overlapping aboriginal claims in British Columbia when he bought that site and demonstrated tremendously good judgment and respect for all involved by sitting down with aboriginal leaders as well as provincial authorities and essentially working out an agreement where he could go ahead with his development on the understanding that if land claims were successful, then he might have a different landlord than he appeared to have presently. But in recent months, when a rock concert was scheduled at Sun Peaks, an aboriginal group that the owner hadn't heard from before showed up and threatened to blockade the road. People's expectations have been tremendously changed by the Delgamuukw decision -- aboriginal people's expectations. There is an industry out there, which I've referred to as the consultancy industry that is feathering its own nest by exploiting those expectations and the uncertainty that hangs over British Columbia. All of that has a profound effect on B.C.'s economy. So I ask again: what is the minister going to do soon to deal with that problem?

Hon. D. Lovick: The ministry has been working flat-out to deal with the problem. The problem, however, is rather complex. It seems to me, based on the questions I'm hearing, that the member is not mindful of the complexity. The Supreme Court of Canada has said certain things which have led to certain actions by certain first nations guided by certain consultants, who happen to have law degrees in many cases. What the provincial Crown has done in response to that burgeoning industry is defend the rights of the Crown and the rights of property owners and leaseholders in every single circumstance. We have been to court a lot. We've done a huge amount; we won the Kitkatla case three times.

[4:45]

We're working very hard to establish certainty in this province to promote economic prosperity for everybody in this province -- first nations and others alike. It's a slow process. Spare me, please, from those who argue that it's a simple solution. It isn't a simple solution. If we don't do it right, and we don't do the appropriate consultation, and we don't treat first nations people with respect -- given the reality of Delgamuukw -- we're going to have a major problem. It's a problem that's going to hurt this province big-time for another century. A little patience, it seems to me, is not only necessary but common sense.

An Hon. Member: From somebody who's never been in business.

K. Krueger: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi makes a very good point. Those were the words of a person who has never been in business and also of a person who told me yesterday how integrated Aboriginal Affairs issues are in everything this government is doing and how ubiquitous Aboriginal Affairs issues are throughout all ministries. The latter I already knew and fully agree with.

But if the minister is so familiar with the CMT issue and says it's so easy to deal with, then my question is: why wouldn't the Forests ministry have known that? Why did Al Bush have to be driven to bankruptcy because the guys in the Fraser Canyon, who work for the same government -- different ministry, but one that's supposed to be integrated because everybody knows how ubiquitous the problems are. . . ? Why didn't they know what to do with it? Why did they shut him down and create this nightmare domino effect for him, which led to a self-made millionaire being driven to bankruptcy? What's gone wrong in the communication process between ministries when that sort of thing can happen? Obviously the minister knows all about CMTs. The Deputy Minister of Forests told me that this was the first such case he'd ever heard of, and it happened in the summer of 1996.

The Heritage Conservation Act enacted by this same government puts the onus on people like Al Bush and says that there is no compensation payable to a person for any loss that results from the operation of this act. The Ministry of Forests had mapped out the right-of-way that they asked Al Bush to bid on. They chose it; they should have known, if anybody, if there were CMTs on it. But they didn't even seem to know about CMTs until the consultants came leaping out of the trees. So the minister can be as pedantic as he chooses, but he's not serving British Columbians well by trying to lord his vocabulary over this or any other member.

When I referred to the issues of fiduciary duty yesterday -- and the minister referred to them a few moments ago. . . . The minister was talking about people within groups for whom negotiations are ongoing having their status. Well, just yesterday I raised an example to the minister about the fact

[ Page 9840 ]

Getting back to the question of fiduciary duty -- an issue that the minister, as Speaker, heard me address with many different ministers -- this government launched an ill-planned and ill-conceived gambling expansion initiative at the beginning of 1997 and threw the door wide-open to destination resort casino applications throughout B.C. Many of them are being brought forward by aboriginal groups. There is documentation from all around North America of the fact that as you expand gambling opportunities and the number of venues for gambling in a jurisdiction, addiction increases at a rapid rate. There is some evidence that aboriginal populations are susceptible to those addictions. I suggest to the minister -- who said yesterday that he deems that, de facto, the province has a fiduciary duty to aboriginal people -- that his government, having launched that gambling expansion initiative and now obviously intending to give the opportunity to aboriginal people to bring forward destination resort gambling casinos on their property, is walking straight into a liability to people who will develop gambling addiction with all its incredible consequences to families and communities. I'd like to know what the ministry has done to prepare for that.

Hon. D. Lovick: I wonder if the member is still the passionate advocate for the Alberta model, the home of VLTs which bring half a billion dollars per year into the Alberta economy, which we have trotted out for us on a regular basis as the New Jerusalem in Canadian politics. I won't, of course, make that point.

I'm back, however, to another point which I think is a little bit important. That is, back to our discussion earlier, whether in fact the member is asking us for -- and he used the term "fiduciary responsibility" again, I think -- a trust responsibility from the provincial Crown to first nations people to somehow protect them from the possibility of addiction. I would set against that the right of first nations, if they so choose, to have casinos and gambling on their lands, just as any other municipality may choose to do, subject to the same rules as other municipalities. If we say that because we know there's a problem there for some. . . . We know that gambling is indeed addictive, just as so many other things are. I for one haven't any time for gambling. I just think it's foolish; I don't do it. But some do; that's their pleasure. The huge majority of them are not addicted to it. It seems to me that the question is whether I have any right to say to adult people: "You shall not do that. I, in my wisdom, am going to determine that you are probably going to get addicted, and this will be bad for you. Therefore I'm going to single you out and say that you won't be allowed to do this."

I set against the so-called trust responsibility the notion of taking on what I think, frankly, is a role that sounds suspiciously like parenting and saying: "We'll take care of you, our little friends who are incapable of taking care of yourselves. We will tell you that you are not allowed to do this, because we don't think you can handle it." That, it seems to me, is what I would hear if I were a first nations person and government said to me: "No, you're not allowed to have any kind of casino operation on your property." It seems to me that first nations people will say: "We want to be treated the same as anybody else, thank you very much. If we want to have one, we will."

I understand that in the Kootenays, the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket are very keen about their plans for a destination resort involving gambling. I met about a week ago with the chief and the administrator for a Merritt Indian band who were very keen about having some kind of casino on their property. They see it as part of their economic strategy.

I am not about to make a judgment that if they do that, it means that X percent of them will automatically be consigned to hell or some other such place, and therefore I should not do that. I don't think that's my prerogative, frankly; I think that's their choice. The member has every right in the world to advocate on behalf of his position. That's quite legitimate; I accept that. But I think there is another side to that particular argument that also has -- or should have -- an opportunity to be heard.

Having said that, I said in the beginning that this ministry does not have program delivery responsibilities; we don't do that. Rather, as the member quite correctly points out, our responsibility is to give advice and to discuss with other ministries that do provide programs our best advice on various things -- our opinions, mindful of the unique needs and particular characteristics of first nations people.

Beyond that, discussion about gambling, quite frankly, it seems to me, is quite beyond the purview of my ministry estimates, Mr. Chairman. I think I've probably answered at sufficient length on that matter.

K. Krueger: Today the minister is awfully quick to try and play the condescension card, the patronizing card, and as always, his exaggeration cards come out all over the table. But yesterday, when he seemed to be more full of the milk of human kindness and willing to look at a matter as "under four eyes" and not be in his habitual role-playing, this is what he said: "So the answer, in terms of fiduciary responsibility, is probably. . .de facto, it seems to me, that the provincial government has accepted as much." I think he's right, particularly with regard to those aboriginal people around the province who, for whatever reason, have not grown up in a situation where they are on a common footing with others in these negotiating processes and decisions that the provincial government makes.

With regard to whether or not I'm saying aboriginal people need protection on the gambling expansion initiative -- heaven help us, I believe all British Columbians need protection from this government on the gambling expansion initiative and many others. That's very well documented on the record. There are umpteen concerns about gambling expansion. In communities like my own hometown, Kamloops, people are already experiencing the very negative social consequences of that gambling expansion initiative.

But summing up what the minister just said, I take it, then, that he and his ministry are doing absolutely nothing to safeguard aboriginal people or forewarn them about the consequences of gambling addiction and the social costs that flow from it to their communities, if they introduce new gambling venues to their communities. Is that the truth?

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me repeat the question, because I think I missed perhaps a word or two of it, and I don't want to

[ Page 9841 ]

K. Krueger: The minister didn't hear because he wasn't listening. Yes, what I asked was. . . . The minister is responsible for Aboriginal Affairs. The minister's government has thrown the doors in British Columbia wide-open to gambling expansion. There are many aboriginal communities that have put in applications to host or develop one of those venues. So my question was: given the minister's previous answer to me that he doesn't even see gambling as part of his jurisdiction, is he telling me that the ministry has done absolutely nothing to forewarn aboriginal people, who are making these applications, of the risks to their people in their communities?

Hon. D. Lovick: The ministry qua ministry has not done anything. The government has done a great deal.

M. de Jong: Maybe a change of pace at this point.

We dealt with some of the reports and some issues arising out of the Treaty Commission yesterday, I think. I have a couple of questions arising out of both the '97 and the '98 reports. I suppose the first thing that can be said on behalf of the Treaty Commission is that unlike many agencies involved with government, their annual reports are released on an extremely timely basis, and that's helpful. I'm not sure if the timing of this year's release had anything to do with other circumstances, but I don't think that's the case, because I think that last year the report was released around the same time. That's a good thing.

One of the themes -- and the minister talked about this in his opening remarks several days ago -- related to the issues of overlaps. The commission has, I think properly, been preoccupied -- and I don't mean that in a pejorative way -- with this notion of resolving the overlaps and recognizing the obstacles that that presents. Maybe I can begin by referring back to '97, when. . . . I don't expect the minister has the report, but for reference, should that be necessary, on page 4 the commission acknowledged that Canada, for its part, has been reluctant to engage in treaty negotiations with a first nation that is pursuing aboriginal-rights-related litigation, firstly against the government. . . .

[5:00]

We are, as we've said time and time again, conducting these discussions on what many believe is the eve of the signing or initialling of a Nisga'a treaty. The question that begs asking, of course, is: with the sad reality that litigation is very much at play between the Nisga'a and Gitanyow peoples, what has the government -- the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia -- done, or what are they saying at this point in time, recognizing that we are potentially at the eleventh hour of negotiations, to their negotiating partner at the table about the preference, the policy, which the province says it has, that you must resolve these overlaps before we sign a final treaty?

Hon. D. Lovick: I was just about to leap to my feet, Mr. Chairman, and my deputy said: "Just a caution." This could indeed, as we know, be before the courts, so I will be very careful. What we say here is, of course, adducible, if there is such a word; it can be used in a court as evidence. With that caveat, then, let me just say that the first point to make is that the process the member describes is quite correct. Normally, before preceding to stage 4, the issue of overlap will be addressed; he is quite correct in that. I would remind him, however, that Nisga'a is outside that treaty process. This is 20 years of work at the table.

I would also advise him, however, that the provincial government has met on three different occasions with Gitanyow, attempting to work this out, starting with the proposition -- again to pick up on what the member quite correctly said -- that the basic policy is to say to first nations people -- largely at their insistence, I might add -- that we work that out among ourselves. You know, you don't need to come and tell us how to do it. Nisga'a-Gitanyow, as I think everybody who has looked at the issue knows full well, is incredibly complicated, problematic and terribly frustrating. I agree with the member: it is a sad case. Having said all that, I would just make the point that, as I say, we have made honest and sincere efforts, I think, to resolve the problem. I am advised by our people at the table that we have indeed made those efforts, and we are doing the absolute best we can to demonstrate good faith, negotiation and adequate consultation, and all of the above. But because the two sides seem absolutely intransigent, we are not saying: "Let's have another meeting."

This will be my last word on the subject. Let me just share with the member, if he hasn't received it, a copy of my letter to Glen Williams, who is the chief negotiator for the Gitanyow. I think he's seen the letter. It simply states the case of what the provincial position is. I hope that answers the member's question.

M. de Jong: Insofar as dealing with the Nisga'a-Gitanyow difficulties, it might not provide the best example around which to conduct these discussions. I'm not going to try to distil volumes of jurisprudence and legal briefs into two sentences. But in general terms, as I understand it, none of the disputed territory falls within the core lands identified by the agreement-in-principle. If that is the case, and if we are then dealing with overlap disputes that relate to management -- wildlife management areas and areas outside of the core lands -- that's probably less problematic and less of an obstacle than if we had overlaps that affected the core lands. If I am correct in that respect, then I think there are other areas of the province where the problem is going to be worse than within the Nass Valley, where we're dealing with that. Maybe the minister could confirm my understanding as I've just related it to him.

Hon. D. Lovick: The member is correct that the land in question is indeed outside the core lands. Let me, if I might, just make very clear what the position is that we articulated, and have throughout. We believe that the final agreement with the Nisga'a, when and if that comes to pass, will protect the legitimate rights of the Gitanyow.

M. de Jong: The minister might be interested to know that this is one of those cases where I don't necessarily place as

[ Page 9842 ]

In the '97 report there was a recommendation from the Treaty Commission that Canada and British Columbia should have consistent policies on negotiating treaty rights within disputed territories, which encourage the resolution of overlap disputes. I take it from reading that passage of a year ago that the Treaty Commission was of the view that Canada and British Columbia either didn't have policies or didn't have consistent policies. I wonder if that is something that the ministry has addressed in the past year and whether the minister is in a position to advise whether those consistent policies exist and what they are. He may not be able to or wish to relate them here, but would he be in a position to provide them at some point?

Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that the broad policy determinants are essentially the same between the federal government and ourselves in terms of how one deals with these things. Apparently the difficulty is that. . . . Although we all accept as a kind of guiding principle that one ought not to negotiate treaties if there are outstanding jurisdictional or overlap issues, the recognition, however, is that it's awfully difficult to put that in too formal a way, simply because there are so many possible variations and unique circumstances. Let's say, for example, that you have four bands in an urban riding essentially all saying: "We have a legitimate claim to this." Lord knows how you'd ever sort that out. In others, you would think it would be some part of territory that would be contiguous with another territory, whereas in others it would be a tiny island or something that for some reason or other another group claims it has some historic connection with and perhaps ownership of.

Broadly, yes, but in terms of absolute guaranteed specificity, no, partly because the federal government would, just as we would, probably look upon these. . . . If you tried to nail it down too tightly, I guess you might limit your ability to negotiate effectively. That, I think -- just to wrap it up, Mr. Chairman -- is probably the matter that the B.C. Treaty Commission addresses in its last report. I did just a very quick scan of the commentary it had on overlap. I remember reading it quickly at the time and saying: "I don't think there's anything new here." But perhaps there is indeed more subtlety there than I was aware of. The member may wish to pursue that further.

M. de Jong: I don't know if that's actually the case. The minister is correct that it presents as a major area of concern again for the Treaty Commission in their '98 report. But when I look at this issue, I return to the notion of creating incentives for settlement, creating a mechanism by which some of these negotiations can be expedited. The minister knows better than anyone that he is working with finite resources. I know he is examining ways to try and collect similar types of negotiations, to look where he can, as part of the fast-tracking mechanism, at where it might be possible to deal with issues on a provincewide basis.

There is a reluctance, I understand, on the part of first nations. I have heard from members of the First Nations Summit who, on the one hand, really covet the rights of individual bands and first nations to negotiate on their own behalf and, on the other hand, quite frankly, lament the fact that they don't have the resources to do it and that they need more money and all of those things. I've said candidly to them and will say candidly to the minister and on the record: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If we are trying to find efficiencies within this process, then let us do that.

It strikes me that one of the tools that both levels of government have at their disposal is to say: "Look, you have to get together. This is one area that falls squarely within your ambit. You've got to fix this. You've got to come to the table at some point and resolve those difficulties. We can't do that for you, and this will represent an obstacle to final settlements." Perhaps I'm signalling to the minister that I, not recognizing all of the complexities that he undoubtedly has become aware of since becoming minister, might in his position -- heaven forbid -- be inclined to send that signal in rather starker terms than I am hearing it at this point.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for the question and the observation. I think it has some validity. Indeed, I'm not averse to advising the member that that is precisely what has been done in certain areas -- Kwakiutl-Nuu-chah-nulth, for example. We will be making an announcement tomorrow, I believe, of a resolution of that. What happened effectively was to say: "You guys had better work this out, because otherwise it isn't going to happen." I would just make the point that that may well be part and parcel of the strategy that ultimately comes of the tripartite meetings. I think that may be a perfectly legitimate way to approach things, to add a little extra incentive to get things moving. As the member correctly points out, however, the complexity of the issue is indeed a huge problem. I'm reluctant to say: "Right, got the solution, and here's how it's going to be from now on." But his point is well taken. As I say, we have some specific examples of where we've indeed done just that.

[5:15]

We have talked about Mr. Robertson. I don't intend to revisit that, but I think it is helpful to recognize that just as the ministry, and presumably the minister, articulated some concerns around the manner in which the Treaty Commission purported to interpret the Delgamuukw decision, that is an excellent way of demonstrating the concerns I was trying to articulate a few days ago around the informational campaign -- which we know, as the minister has volunteered in these debates, the government intends to carry out -- around the Nisga'a treaty.

I thought it would be appropriate, recognizing that in this report the Treaty Commission presented its interpretation of what Delgamuukw means to first nations and what it means to non-aboriginal British Columbians. . . . I presume it was that section of the report that the ministry was referring to when it wrote to the Treaty Commission, and I thought that it

[ Page 9843 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The absolutely key issue is the private property question. That was our principal concern with the so-called "Lay Person's Guide to Delgamuukw," as I recall. The difficulty was. . . . As a matter of fact, I was flipping the channels in my office last night between events, and I saw Peter Lusztig being interviewed on "Voice of the Province." He was asked that question by the reporter -- that the provincial Crown has obviously registered concern about it, and what's the problem? Peter Lusztig's defence, essentially, was to say: "Well, we have two expert legal people, and they gave us their views, and that's what we did to produce this document."

Our contention, as my deputy's letter made very clear, is that you have given us a legal opinion on private property and Delgamuukw. What we're concerned about is simply that your opinion, given that it comes from the B.C. Treaty Commission, may be perceived to have some kind of official sanction and legitimacy. It's an opinion that we the provincial Crown, quite frankly, don't accept. Our position from the beginning, as the member certainly knows full well, is that private property is not on the table.

What that legal opinion -- I'm not sure whether it was the Osgoode Hall guy or the other university professor -- did, we think, is cause some confusion around that and quite conceivably would generate -- I won't say fear and trembling -- at least concern among people that: "Well, wait a minute. The province is saying private property isn't on the table, but these legal experts and the B.C. Treaty Commission are telling us that maybe it is." That was our concern. In that regard, we thought that the Treaty Commission, frankly, had overstepped its mandate. It's supposed to be the keeper of the process. It's supposed to be helping the process, not taking a position that on the face of it is at odds with one of the principles involved in the process.

M. de Jong: I'm just trying to find the. . . . I know the passage that the minister is referring to, and for the life of me I can't. . . .

A Voice: Page 34.

M. de Jong: Yes, of course. The minister referred to where the Treaty Commission says about the Supreme Court decision that it "clearly suggests that there are private lands in B.C. that are subject to aboriginal title or at least were wrongly sold." Then it goes on to explain why it believes that to be the case.

Let's start off by recognizing that these are not the minister's or ministry's words or the government's words, but it is an interpretation offered, as the minister says, by the keeper of the process. The agency that is charged with facilitating negotiations believes this to be the case and has accepted this legal opinion that has arisen after an analysis of Delgamuukw. So is it appropriate -- and I think this is what the minister is driving at -- for an agency such as this to offer an opinion about the environment within which negotiations that it is supposed to facilitate are now taking place? I guess that's the first question.

The second question that follows is: is it appropriate for the government -- for one of the parties that funds and creates that agency -- to criticize that interpretation? I'm not sure at this point that I know the answer to either of those questions. But I know they are important questions, because they determine the relationship that the Treaty Commission will have with the people of British Columbia and with the negotiating parties themselves. I think that's fundamentally important.

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, let me clarify, if I might -- I think the member for Matsqui will appreciate my clarification -- that I think we need to be careful of terminology. I don't think we should call this a legal opinion. It was a review; it's a so-called citizens' guide. It's not saying: "Here is the hard legal conclusion to what Delgamuukw means." The member, I know, is fully aware of what that distinction is and why it's important.

Then the question becomes: is it appropriate, then, to offer the review -- or what may appear to be a legal opinion, if I could put it that way? I think the best answer I can give to that is the position that the deputy articulated in his letter. If I might just read that into the record, what Mr. Steenkamp said was: "While I understand the Treaty Commission's desire to inform the public about the decision, I question whether the 'Lay Person's Guide to Delgamuukw' achieves this." Here's the point: "It goes beyond a factual description of the case and presents just one among many interpretations of the decision. The issue is whether this assists the public in understanding the issues involved and facilitates progress for treaty negotiations in British Columbia."

Our concern is simply that in the Treaty Commission's desire to advise people and to help facilitate the process, they may indeed have done the opposite. That's why we argue the case that it is indeed not appropriate for them to do so. We are not saying that the Treaty Commission should all be summarily executed at dawn or something like that, but we want to be understood clearly to say what I just said: we think it's unfortunate that they did that, and we think it's unfortunate that they did that for the reason I just read into the record.

M. de Jong: We've concentrated on the provisions of the section of the report that deal most clearly with private lands and those lines which -- quite frankly, it's the "Lay Person's Guide" -- any layperson would understand and possibly be alarmed at. There are other issues addressed in that section of the report. I should ask the minister whether he has concerns about some of the other answers given to the questions posed on pages 34 and 35 of the Treaty Commission report.

Hon. D. Lovick: To answer the member's questions, there are a number of particular points made in the document to which he refers that we do have some concerns with -- not so much because of something like a factual error or anything like that but rather the emphasis and the nature of the presentation. Again, it's for essentially the same reasons that I quoted into the record a moment ago -- namely, we think that some of these things, as presented, are as likely to scare people needlessly as they are to provide clarification and facilitate the settlement of treaties. That's our basic conclusion. Again, I'm very reluctant to say, "Here is the offending sentence," or something like that, but we did want to go on record as saying that we do think it is inappropriate for them to do what they did.

M. de Jong: Okay, fair enough. But here's the problem that I suppose one could confront the minister with. On the one hand, government, in the past at least, has been very happy to charge the Treaty Commission with the responsibil-

[ Page 9844 ]

[5:30]

Hon. D. Lovick: I note that the member smiled as he posed this question, and I smiled as I listened to the question, because I think we know we are engaged in a little exaggeration of a problem. Let me make it clear: it's not about the Treaty Commission having opinions on the treaty process. We are talking about a Supreme Court decision which is arguably going to have a greater impact on this province and on this nation than any other single historical event in at least 20 years -- maybe 50 years. That's the issue that Delgamuukw. . . . The very word is now part of British Columbians' vocabulary. We're not talking about some Mickey Mouse notion of whether it's good to consult with people and whether the Treaty Commission is going to make sure that they stay in a medium-priced hotel or something. We're talking about what is arguably the blueprint for the development of our society in the future. That's the point, and as we have said, the Treaty Commission is absolutely within its rights, and indeed its responsibility, to give us a factual report on what's going on. It is not within its responsibility, as we perceive it -- as I perceive it -- to appear to take a particular position based on a Supreme Court decision which is arguable, which is debatable. That's the problem.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Lovick: I don't know whether. . . . The member across the way says: "Isn't that educational?" Well, if he wants to talk about a John Stuart Mill kind of argument about freedom of speech and debate and all of that, I think that's fine. He and I can do that; he and I can present opinions, saying: "Here's what Delgamuukw means, and I'm onside. You bet. I'm a believer in Areopagitica and On Liberty and all those other wonderful essays about free speech and argument." But this is not the case. This is an ostensibly official body which will be regarded as representing the official position and as taking a position when it doesn't have the right to. The positions to be taken will be taken by the principals: the federal government, the provincial government and first nations.

Frankly, I don't care about the view that the Treaty Commission has about which is the better of those three views. Their job is to be the keeper of the process. By all means they can quietly say: "We think one interpretation may be better." They can assist us in that, but the three principals are the ones who are going to articulate what Delgamuukw is about -- not the Treaty Commission. That's our concern. I make no apology whatsoever for saying to the Treaty Commission: "We think you crossed the line. We think you perhaps did a disservice to the process rather than a good service to the process." We did it very quietly, as the member will recognize. We didn't stand up and do a ministerial statement in the House. We didn't go rushing off to radio and television stations, saying: "This is outrageous." We wanted to make very clear, for the record, that we didn't think this helped facilitate the process.

M. de Jong: I guess the question that flows from that is whether the Treaty Commission is in any better position today than it was prior to publishing this annual report to know what falls within the ministry's view of its jurisdiction and what doesn't. I'm not sure they are.

Interjection.

M. de Jong: I think, if I'm interpreting him correctly, that the minister has said that he was displeased that the Treaty Commission chose to offer an opinion about -- an interpretation of -- a Supreme Court of Canada decision that I understand the ministry doesn't share. Am I being fair in characterizing what the minister has said? I think the minister is indicating that that is a fair assessment. Now I've forgotten what I said, so it doesn't matter anyway. But not to make light of this. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Let me help, if I may clarify. I want to give a little more of the case we presented on behalf of the ministry about what BCTC did in terms of producing the "Lay Person's Guide to Delgamuukw." Here's the paragraph, and I think its important. The paragraph reads as follows:

"The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Delgamuukw is a landmark case which deals with complex issues. All of the principals are wrestling with the implications of the decision and are attempting to understand what it will mean for the treaty process. Early on in the discussions among the principals, we found that reaching consensus on one interpretation of the Delgamuukw decision would be difficult and that this would not be helpful in achieving our objectives. Instead, we focused on revitalizing the treaty process and agreed to move forward in achieving certainty in British Columbia through negotiations."

I think that gives the added reason, if you will, for why we take umbrage with what happened in the Treaty Commission report.

M. de Jong: It sounds like the Treaty Commission disagreed. Maybe that's where the issue lies. I am trying to reconcile what happened here, because we're going to see this again in the future, assuming that the Treaty Commission remains in effect. Well, we could potentially see it again in the future, because, as I say, I don't think the Treaty Commission is in any better position today to know when it will offend the ministry and on what issues the ministry believes it would be appropriate for it to comment in this manner.

I recall a couple of years ago -- and I think last year as well -- when the Treaty Commission chastised the government around the issue of interim measures. That was before the minister's time in this post. To try and get a better sense of where the minister is coming from on this issue, let me ask this question: is that a more appropriate form of criticism? Is that a more appropriate function for the Treaty Commission, where it believes that one of the parties -- and I'm generalizing in the

[ Page 9845 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The member raises a good question. I think the answer that captures all the subtleties, and some not so subtle parts of the question, is just to say that the Treaty Commission is charged with being the keeper of the process -- to make sure the process works and to make sure that we are making progress in this honourable, legitimate and necessary cause that we're all embarked upon. To comment on the process, whether one is critical and says that we're not doing enough about X to make the process work, that we should have more money, that we don't think that people are showing up on time for meetings. . . . Anything like that, it seems to me, is fair comment, because it's about the process. What happened, I think, in the report, in the "Lay Person's Guide to Delgamuukw," is that it had nothing to do with the process, and that's not fair comment.

It seems to me that the member. . . . I shouldn't say that. I find it difficult to imagine that the member can say, after the letter that we wrote about this, that the B.C. Treaty Commission will not have a somewhat clearer understanding of what we at least perceive its appropriate and proper function ought to be. I think we've made it very clear indeed, and I am sure that we will be having discussions about this when we get all of the parties at a tripartite table again.

M. de Jong: And they may still disagree. Last point -- I don't want to spend too much more time on this particular issue. I raised the question around interim measures. That perhaps fell somewhere in the middle, because the criticism, as I understand it, was of government not abiding by the spirit of the policy around interim measures agreements. I think it was a very specific criticism of the provincial government with respect to land use and issues of that sort. Is that a legitimate function of the Treaty Commission? I must say candidly to the minister that it struck me at the time as being somewhat odd that the Treaty Commission would in effect criticize a negotiating position taken by one of the parties. Perhaps I'm not being fair to the commission. So be it, but that is my recollection of my response at the time to what was taking place.

Hon. D. Lovick: We disagreed with the commission's conclusion vis-à-vis interim measures, but we accept their right to make that point. We think that is fair comment about the process and what they perceived to be something that was interfering with that process, just as the more recent report on "system overload." We didn't like it entirely, because we thought: "Wait a minute, we think we're doing all that we should"-- well, not all we should but as much as we can. One could read the report to say that it's a J'accuse on the part of the commission. But again, that's fair comment. I'm not for a moment suggesting something like censorship of the commission, but we're saying that it exceeded what we think are its legitimate terms of reference.

The Chair: Noting the hour, member.

M. de Jong: I'm trying to think of a way to quote Zola, but the minister has used the only phrase that springs to mind.

Noting the hour, I was going to ask the minister. . . . Earlier today we referred to several of the recommendations contained in the select standing committee report. At the time, he wasn't in possession of some of the documentation that he thought would be helpful for him to respond. We can begin that now or wait. I'm in the minister's hands.

I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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