1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 14, Number 22

[ Page 12197 ]

The House met at 2:13 p.m.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It gives me great pleasure as Attorney General to be able to introduce a former Attorney General . . . .

An Hon. Member: The all-time great.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The all-time great, I'm told, and I believe it. I'm delighted to be able to introduce Alex Macdonald, who is a former member of this House. You know, one of the things his presence tells me is that after politics there is still life.

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member's turn will come too -- soon.

The former Attorney General keeps writing books. This is his third book. He's given me a free copy, hence the introduction. The book is called Outrage! , and it's about Canada's justice system being on trial. It's outrageous, actually, for an AG to write such a book, but he's done it. It's probably a good read and food for thought. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Abbott: Today in the gallery is a group from the Shuswap -- specifically, a group of students from J. L. Jackson Junior Secondary School in Salmon Arm and their teacher, Ms. Dyer. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome.

T. Nebbeling: We have in the gallery today a friend from Sydney, Australia. Robert Cooper has spent some time in my town, Whistler. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just looked up in the gallery to see a friend, Margaret Birrell, who is also the executive director of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities. Margaret and her group do tremendous work for people in this province who have disabilities. I'd ask the House to please make her very welcome.

Hon. I. Waddell: As Minister of Culture, I'd like to add my welcome to the former member from Vancouver East and an old friend, Alex Macdonald. It's nice to see him still writing.

I have three guests in the gallery. Philip Halkett is my deputy minister for the liquor distribution branch. He has taken on some tough jobs in government for a long time -- tough jobs for short times, too. And he's always had a good sense of humour about it. With him is Louise Graham, executive coordinator of the branch, and Judi Malthus, senior executive secretary. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

[1410]

G. Farrell-Collins: I also want to welcome Margaret Birrell. She ran against me in the last election. I'm glad to see her here in the gallery. I would ask the House to make her welcome but not too comfortable.

Hon. C. Evans: In the gallery today is a friend of mine, Dan Weib, who is a director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I visited his feed mill when he opened it, where he built a railroad siding and the like. He's quite an innovator in his industry. With him today is Vic Regier of the B.C. Broiler Hatching Egg Commission. Both are here for meetings later today. Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: With us today is a young man whose name is Todd Decker. He has chosen to celebrate his sixteenth birthday by coming down to these chambers and watching us in action. I think he has an ambition to be here one day. Todd is a straight-A student. He's accompanied by his grandfather Garth Sims, Herb Rodenbush, Joyce Rodenbush and Sam Beldesy -- all from Lake Cowichan. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Krueger: The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has allowed me the privilege of introducing two of his constituents today, who are former neighbours of mine when I lived in his constituency in Smithers. Harry and Audrey Kruisselbrink are long-term foster parents and a couple of tremendous people. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Today there is a group of grade 11 students from the Spectrum senior secondary alternative program in Vancouver. They're going to be in the House today. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Thompson, and several adults are accompanying them as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Today in the gallery we have some members from the Vancouver Burma Round Table: Dr. Eugene Yawnghwe, Jennifer Suprun, Joie Warnock, Eric Snider and Pon Norn. With them are some people from the Victoria

chapter of the Canada-Tibet committee: Judy Tethong, Geishe Tashe Namgyal and Dave O'Neil. With them is another good friend, Trevor Oram, and here in spirit, George C. Berticevich. Please make them welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Since the Minister of Fisheries is the shy type, I'd like to make an introduction on his behalf. Sitting up in the gallery is his better half, his spouse Linda Streifel, who is a good friend of mine and, incidentally, a good friend of the Minister of Fisheries as well. So would the House please make Linda Streifel welcome.

Oral Questions

ICBC REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTO GLASS REPAIR SHOPS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the minister responsible for ICBC. The government has been telling us over the last months how it's cutting red tape and taxes for small businesses. If that's the case, perhaps the minister can explain why, as of three days ago, small ICBC glass repair shops are being required to pay an $800 fee or be cut off from ICBC business.

Hon. D. Lovick: I thank the member for his question. The information that I have been given says that the story that appeared in the local media is not entirely accurate. Indeed, it is not the case that people must comply instantly and spend all that money or be cut off. Rather, I understand that ICBC is saying: investments in terms of improving your service, ide-

[ Page 12198 ]

ally to put an end to those mobile operators who don't have the necessary equipment and who aren't apparently capable at all times of providing the appropriate service . . . . Those activities were being looked at. Moreover, ICBC has given me assurance that they will meet with the people the member refers to and try to work out their differences so that they won't be unduly . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . subject to hardship.

[1415]

The Speaker: First supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: It would be nice if ICBC met with the people before they imposed these things.

I have a copy of a document of about 20 pages, an edict that was sent out by ICBC to small auto glass repair shops, requiring huge facilities, requiring upgrades and requiring a checklist of what they need, right down to -- and the Premier will appreciate that -- toilet paper in the bathroom. How does the minister responsible for ICBC think that that kind of overregulation and dictatorial strategy by ICBC is going to help small businesses succeed instead of driving them further into the ground, dealing with ICBC red tape?

Hon. D. Lovick: Is there something wrong with the acoustics in this place? I told the member what ICBC's intentions were; I said why they were carrying out this program. I also said that they were in the process of meeting with these people to discuss those concerns to ensure they wouldn't exert undue hardship. I thought I was very clear. I'm sorry if I'm not clear, or not clear enough for the member, but as I say, the corporation has given me its assurance that this is not a fiat, that indeed these people will not be put out of business.

Rather, the statement that has been made on behalf of the so-called mom-and-pop operations was, I am advised, much overstated. I would be more than happy to provide the member with detailed chapter-and-verse explanations.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

M. de Jong: What the minister didn't explain is why a government that is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars telling people how they're reducing red tape for business is creating a document like this that prescribes everything right down to the colour of the carpets for small businesses in British Columbia. It tells operators that they're going to have one full-time employee to meet and greet customers; it doesn't prescribe the colour of the wallpaper, but it does describe what the paint is going to have to look like in these independent businesses.

The question for the minister is: how does he think allowing ICBC, a Crown agency, to micromanage small, independently owned businesses in British Columbia is going to do anything to improve the lot of those people who only want to provide for their families in running their business?

Hon. D. Lovick: In fairness, let me say very clearly that the points being made by the members opposite have legitimacy. I'm not denying that. I have said, however -- when this matter was brought to my attention -- to the corporation that I want to ensure that we don't exert undue hardship on those operators. I have been given that assurance that they will do so, and I propose to hold them to that.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: The minister's words wouldn't ring so hollow if he would simply stand up in the House and say: "Today I've cancelled the $800 fee." It's that simple. But then he couldn't pay for the new offices. I suppose there might be some difficulty meeting the expenses on the new offices for ICBC in downtown Vancouver.

The edict even tells operators that they have to operate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. There is no room to manoeuvre. They must abide by that. What hypocrisy! You know what? I called an ICBC claim centre today; they close for lunch. But small businesses won't be able to close for lunch, because this minister's corporation says they can't. A simple question: why are small businesses being regulated to the point where they are being required to keep specific hours, when ICBC's offices are closed at lunch and when the government's own offices close for lunch?

[1420]

Hon. D. Lovick: Frankly, it's difficult to understand and appreciate the level of indignation across the way. Here we are in . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order. We're trying to hear.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . question period, when we have 15 minutes, and this is their opportunity to talk about all the large, significant issues affecting the millions of people across this province. And this is the best they've got. I have answered the question, hon. Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. It's very difficult for anyone to hear -- both sides of the House.

Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hear members opposite saying: "Rip it up. Cancel the fee. Act unilaterally. Just do it." The point, however, is that this particular initiative was one that had buy-in from most of the people in the industry. They were part of it. That's the information I was given.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Lovick: How interesting. Even the semi-literate are exercised today -- fascinating.

The Speaker: Minister, that's not appropriate.

Hon. D. Lovick: The point I have made and will make again is that when this information came to my attention, I

[ Page 12199 ]

said to ICBC: "I'm concerned about this. I want assurances that we will not adversely and unnecessarily impact business in this province."

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: They have given me that assurance, and I will hold them to it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please. Members and ministers will come to order.

G. Plant: The minister stands up and questions the importance of the issue. What could be more important to public policy in British Columbia than the hypocrisy of a government that claims it's committed to reducing red tape, when every day, in every way imaginable, it promulgates rules and regulations that are strangling business in British Columbia?

For the benefit of the Minister of Small Business, he might like to know that in this 20-page document, the list of accreditation requirements includes a requirement for the outfitting of mobile units. Apparently not only do these mobile units have to drive around, they actually have to have a vacuum cleaner, hood and seat covers, a broom and, yes, a dustpan.

My question is for the Minister of Small Business and Tourism. Will he tell us how he can stand in this House and claim with any integrity that his government is committed to reducing red tape, when in fact his government is promulgating rules that are going to require people to buy dustpans if they want to fix car windows in British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Lovick: These people who are taking this wonderfully self-righteous position are the same ones who have attacked this side of the House for reducing small business taxes -- okay? -- and for introducing measures to cut back on red tape. We have made huge investments of time and energy to achieve that end.

I want to emphasize that the initiative that we are talking about here was designed to guarantee that the service provided by windshield repair places was indeed going to be done correctly and right. Most of the people in the business . . .

The Speaker: Finish up, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . told us that this was (

a) acceptable and (b) . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: I haven't finished, Madam Speaker. I'm waiting for silence.

The Speaker: Minister, finish your answer, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: Well, it's the old story. These people are like the Queen of Hearts. They believe in sentence first, trial later.

[1425]

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to make the point, Madam Speaker -- and they have been shouting, so I will . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, we appreciate . . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: I'll be very quick.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Lovick: They told us . . .

The Speaker: Minister, will you take your seat, please.

Hon. D. Lovick: . . . that they are already doing it. They have already invested the money, and they will continue.

The Speaker: Minister, take your seat, please. Thank you.

I recognize, for a first supplementary . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Order! I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston on a first supplementary.

G. Plant: No doubt any day now we'll see the $400,000 manual for how to use a dustpan in a mobile unit. But the real problem the minister has is this: I don't think he would have done anything about it if he hadn't been caught.

You know what, Madam Speaker? These rules don't tell auto glass repair shops that they need to have a computer video monitor. They don't say that a 12-inch monitor is okay; they don't say that a 14-inch monitor is okay. These rules tell people they need to have a 15-inch computer monitor.

I want to know: how can the minister stand up here and say that he has any commitment to reducing red tape in business when his ministry and his Crown corporation are, day by day, violating every aspect of the spirit of that promise?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: With reference to the particular point in this matter, I think the minister responsible for ICBC has given a sympathetic answer: to look into the matter and to deal with it. I want to tell the hon. member that we are committed to reducing red tape. We brought in

an act here; we introduced the first stage . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. I. Waddell: Well, we introduced 19 reductions of red tape . . .

[ Page 12200 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order!

Hon. I. Waddell: . . . another 30 reductions . . . . We introduced the best business tax reduction in a long time -- one of the best in Canada -- for small business. We are committed. We have a business task force, and we have asked the government departments to look at matters through a business lens. This may be an example . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . . Minister, finish up.

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. members will listen, I'll try and give them an answer.

We are committed to reducing red tape. We're committed to getting government departments to look at things through a business lens. We will do this. I will personally look into this matter and make sure that there's no excessive red tape.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY RATE IN B.C.

R. Thorpe: Auto glass repair shops are not the only businesses in British Columbia being strangled by this government. While this government runs misleading ads on how it's helping small business, the NDP record shows a different story. The number of business bankruptcies by the NDP's policies has increased by 15 percent from 1997 to 1998, while business bankruptcies across the country are down. Can the Small Business minister explain to us not only why B.C. led the country in business bankruptcies but why the crisis continues to grow while bankruptcies in Canada go down?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Come to order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, when that member over there offers an apology to people with disabilities for what he said in the House the other day, I'll be pleased to answer his question.

Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: In the members' gallery today, there is a special visitor from Saudi Arabia. His Excellency Dr. Mohammad Al-Hussaini is the newly appointed Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Canada. The ambassador is in British Columbia to prepare for a visit to our province in early June of the Minister of Higher Education of Saudi Arabia. I'm looking forward to meeting with the ambassador and indeed with the minister when he visits our province. I'd like to ask the House to join me in making the ambassador feel very welcome.

[1430]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I have the honour to present the annual report for 1998 of the Forest Appeals Commission.

Petitions

E. Conroy: I have a petition from the village of Montrose. The people of Montrose have requested assistance in keeping their school open.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee A for Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

In this House, I call Motion 61 sitting on the order paper in the name of the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows.

Motions on Notice

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN BURMA

W. Hartley: I move Motion 61 in my name on the order paper.

[Be it resolved that this Assembly deplores the continuing violations of human rights in Burma, including extrajudicial and arbitrary executions, rape, torture, inhuman treatment, mass arrests, forced labour, forced relocation and denial of freedom of expression, assembly, association and movement, as reported by the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur;

Be it further resolved that in the opinion of this Assembly these human rights abuses in Burma are the result of policy at the highest level and that the regime's officials bear political and legal responsibility for them;

Be it further resolved that this Assembly urges the military regime in Burma to:

(

a) immediately and unconditionally release all detained political leaders and all political prisoners, to ensure their physical integrity and to permit them to participate in the process of national reconciliation;

(

b) repeal all regressive laws;

(

c) stop all the violations of human rights and in particular the unlawful coercion against the National League for Democracy (NLD) members leading to surrendering of their membership and the closure of NLD offices; and

(

d) immediately initiate a substantive political dialogue with the Committee Representing the People's Parliament before there is further violent upheaval in Burma.

Be it further resolved that the Legislature condemns the State Peace and Development Council (formerly named the State Law and Order Restoration Council) for:

(

a) openly encouraging the production, trade and export of opium and heroin into North America; and

(

b) racially-motivated genocide against the ethnic peoples in Burma, especially those in Karen, Karenni and Shan States;

(

a) recognize as the legitimate instrument of the will of the Burmese people the Committee Representing the People's Parliament formed by the National League for Democracy on 16 September 1998 as acquiring the legal authority of 251 MP's and support of the four non-Burman ethnic political parties;

[ Page 12201 ]

(

b) take all necessary action to achieve coordinated international action in support of the restoration of human rights in Burma;

(

c) direct the federal drug enforcement agency to increase counter narcotics efforts specific to the flow of heroin into Vancouver from Burma; and

(

d) appeal to the UN Secretary-General to send a special envoy to Burma to continue discussions with the leaders of the military regime as well as with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders in order to make significant advances towards the democratization of Burma.]

Burma is a country at war with its own people. In 1988 the boot of military oppression stomped on the head of democracy and massacred thousands of people in the streets of Rangoon. Then the military junta arrested thousands more and sentenced them to long prison sentences without trial. Many people were tortured and raped. Thousands escaped to refugee camps along the Thai-Burma borders, where today -- a decade later -- close to one million Burmese refugees in makeshift camps struggle to survive without adequate food, water, medical care and clothing. These people cannot go back to Burma.

Thailand is becoming more and more intolerant of the drug, refugee and AIDS problems coming across the border.

In 1988, following the brutal crackdown by the military, fear and shock gripped the people of Burma, but the momentum of the democracy movement could not be crushed. People united behind Aung San Suu Kyi, their source of hope and inspiration. Aung San Suu Kyi brought the principles of non-violence and civil disobedience to her people's desire for democratic freedom and personal dignity. Aung San Suu Kyi is loved and revered by the Burmese people in their decade of darkness, which grows more oppressive as each year passes.

March 27, 1999 -- just a few weeks ago -- was a particularly dark day. Dr. Michael Aris, Aung San Suu Kyi's devoted husband, died of cancer in the United Kingdom, while the Burmese military junta callously refused to grant Dr. Aris an entry visa for a final visit with Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma.

Hon. Speaker, Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for most of the past ten years for endangering the state. The military junta has repeatedly made efforts to entice her to permanently leave the country in exchange for her release, but she has consistently refused to abandon Burma.

[1435]

Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi is one of the most admirable leaders of our time. She has grown in stature and respect since her first speech in Rangoon in 1988, which began her campaign for democracy and human rights.

In 1990 the State Law and Order Restoration Council, the military junta known by the acronym SLORC, forcibly relocated over 500,000 citizens known to be supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi. Then, in May 1990, the multiparty general election was held in Burma. The election was free and fair and affirmed as such by the people of Burma and the world. A total of 485 candidates were elected. Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, the NLD, won 392 of the 485 National Assembly seats. The military won only ten seats. SLORC was stunned by the dramatic landslide victory of the NLD, and in response, SLORC decided not to honour the election results.

Under the 1990 Peoples' Parliament Election Law, the National League for Democracy were legally elected as the representatives of the people of Burma. SLORC maintained by force an illegal regime and expanded their campaigns of terror from urban centres to the surrounding rural areas of the Kachin, Shan, Mon, Arakan and Karen states -- campaigns of rural destruction which have continued through to today.

The human rights situation in Burma is one of the worst in the world today. The illegitimate military junta is waging a war on Burmese ethnic minorities -- ordinary, powerless people. During the past decade, the military regime has systematically carried out ethnic cleansing action and genocide against ethnic groups. Women have been targeted as victims of military terror tactics.

In Burma the rape of women by field troops is a weapon of war. The use of rape as a military policy and political tool is one of the most despicable crimes which any political regime could commit, and all the published documents indicate that Rangoon's junta is guilty of that most despicable crime.

I cite the Globe and Mail

article of July 4, 1998, by Leslie Kean and Dennis Bernstein, entitled "Rape of the Ethnic Women Just Another Strategy for Burmese Army," which outlines how rape is systematically being used by Burma's military as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing or Burmanization. Leslie Kean and Dennis Bernstein are two writers who have greatly contributed to the free-Burma movement worldwide.

At the United Nations women's conference in Beijing in 1995, the Burmese Women's Union stated that women have been raped in an organized and systematic way.

The United Nations General Assembly has several annual resolutions regarding the situation of human rights in Burma. The UN General Assembly has affirmed that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government and has called for a special reporter to establish contact with the military regime in Burma and with the people, including political leaders deprived of their liberty. This special reporter is to report on any progress made towards the transfer of power to a civilian government, the drafting of a new constitution, the lifting of restriction on personal freedoms and the restoration of human rights. Thus far, the military has refused entry to the special reporter.

The European Union is also pressing the Burmese military to allow the special reporter to enter Burma. The UN is gravely concerned that the government of Burma still has not implemented its commitment towards democracy, in light of the results of the election held in 1990. The UN is also concerned about the travel restrictions placed on Aung San Suu Kyi and other political leaders, the continued arrests and harassment of members and supporters of the National League for Democracy that forced resignations of elected representatives and the long closure of all universities and colleges following student demonstrations in 1996.

The United Nations is also concerned about the continued violation of human rights, including extrajudicial executions; killing of civilians; torture; arbitrary arrests and detention; death in custody; absence of due process of law; severe restrictions on freedoms of opinion, assembly and association; violations of freedom of movement; forced relocation; forced labour by children and adults, including portering for the military; abuse of women and children; and oppressive measures directed at ethnic and religious minorities.

[1440]

The United Nations has called on the Burmese military regime to immediately and unconditionally release all

[ Page 12202 ]

detained political leaders and political prisoners, to ensure their physical integrity and to permit them to participate in the process of national reconciliation. The United Nations has called on the military junta to engage in a substantive political dialogue with the National League for Democracy's general secretary, Aung San Suu Kyi, and other political leaders and representatives of ethnic groups to achieve national reconciliation and the full restoration of democracy, in particular through the transfer of power to democratically elected representatives.

Hon. Speaker, the International Labour Organization, the ILO, has objected to forced labour in Burma for over 30 years. In 1992 an ILO commission of inquiry found abundant evidence of forced labour imposed on the civilian population by the military authorities for portering, construction, maintenance and servicing of military camps and military projects, road construction and railway and bridge maintenance.

I quote from the report: "it thus appears that unfettered powers of military and government officers to exact forced labour from the civilian population are taken for granted, "often giving rise to the extortion of money and to threats to life and security, physical abuse, torture, rape and murder." Forced labour . . . is widely performed by women, children and elderly persons . . . . " This report reveals a saga of untold misery and suffering, oppression and exploitation. The ILO report accuses the military junta of slavery and crimes against humanity.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union, the IPU, at its 1997 session on the human rights of parliamentarians, also passed resolutions against Burma after observing the wave of arrests of 235 NLD MPs in May of 1996 for attending a meeting with Aung San Suu Kyi. Further arrests of NLD MPs have been reported, and NLD MPs continue to face pressure to resign from their positions and to endure threats to their families. NLD Members of Parliament continue to submit their resignations as a result of continued harassment and pressure from the authorities.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union reports of inhumane and degrading treatment of NLD MPs in Burmese prisons and of refusal of the military regime to allow observers to verify the conditions of detention.

Hon. Speaker, the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and the Inter-Parliamentary Union have all concluded that there are serious human rights violations in Burma against democratically elected representatives and against ordinary, powerless people. These respected international bodies have passed resolution after resolution annually and again last month, calling on the brutal military regime to accommodate the aspirations of the people of Burma for democracy, human rights, ethnic equality and justice.

Human rights violations in Burma such as rapes, extrajudicial killings, slave labour, plunder and pillage -- especially of rural people in the ethnic areas -- have been endlessly documented by UN agencies and the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International and numerous NGO officials. But what has been done for the victims? Why is no one really listening to Burma?

It is a dreadful, horrendous message that we have failed to really hear -- perhaps because the atrocities have taken place on an ongoing basis over more than a decade, and we are inoculated to ongoing tragedies.

We find ourselves in a place of resigned acceptance of the sustained suffering of the people of Burma, and that is wrong. We must call on the international community to wake up and focus on the plight of ordinary people in Burma, where there is a well-documented history of oppression and where illegitimate rulers act like gangsters engaged in drug deals and acts of genocide against their own people. Burma has a democratically elected government which since 1990 has not been allowed to govern. It is our duty as elected parliamentarians to show that the principles we hold for ourselves also apply for others.

[1445]

In response to the ongoing harassment and detention of National League for Democracy MPs, on September 16, 1998, Aung San Suu Kyi and 251 NLD MPs, along with representatives of four ethnic minority parities, formed the committee representing the People's Parliament. The committee has been given the power of authority to act on behalf of the People's Parliament duly elected in 1990. At its first meeting, the committee decided that the tenure of the parliament elected in 1990 will cease only when a state constitution, in accordance with the wishes of the people, has been ratified and approved by parliament.

The committee also decided that laws passed since 1988 without the approval of parliament are not legal. Aung San Suu Kyi has appealed to all the people of Burma, including the military, to support the committee's task. She has also appealed to all the democratically elected parliaments of the world to give due recognition to the committee and the work they are doing.

I now want to address the smuggling of heroin from Burma into Vancouver, British Columbia, and into North America. Since the military coup in 1988, opium production in Burma has doubled, making Burma the world's largest supplier of heroin. It is widely acknowledged that Burma supplies upward of 60 percent of the U.S. heroin market. Most of the heroin seized in Canada comes from Southeast Asia, a region in which Burma produces about 90 percent of the opium. Heroin use in Canada is a growing problem in several cities, including Vancouver. In fact, last year the human and material cost of the explosion of heroin use led Vancouver city officials to declare a state of emergency.

In my community of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, heroin use among high school students has risen dramatically in the past year. The school district of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has declared drug-free zones around secondary schools, patrolled and enforced by police. Thirteen-year-old students are becoming hooked on heroin. Maple Ridge drug counsellors see a trend starting in Vancouver's downtown east side and spreading to outlying communities. The young people in our communities have no idea about the poison they are dealing with or about the chemicals and unsanitary conditions of its manufacture.

And of course, they know little of the horrendous abuse of the young people of Burma, beaten and raped by soldiers in the poppy fields -- young boys and girls forced into slavery to harvest the opium that makes possible the short-lived heroin fix in Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows and in other communities.

Meanwhile, millions of people in Burma are suffering from the rapid spread of an HIV and AIDS epidemic. There are direct links between Burma and Vancouver, which puts British Columbia at the forefront of becoming the largest centre for the importation and distribution of heroin entering North America. This is very big business, providing drug-money laundering opportunities throughout Southeast Asia. According to the Paris-based Geopolitical Drug Watch, the

[ Page 12203 ]

Burma narco-dictatorship is financed through the region's oil and gas company, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprises, the main channel for laundering heroin money earned by the Burmese army.

In 1997 the United States imposed a ban on new investment in Burma, and the European Union withdrew preferential trade tariffs for Burmese exports in the European Union following a European Commission investigation into the practice of slave labour in Burma. The Canadian federal government has condemned the Burmese military for human rights abuses. However, there is little constraint on Canadian investment in Burma, investment which contributes directly to the military regime.

In November 1998, Vancouver-based Indochina Goldfields announced the startup of a $300 million (U.S.) copper mine in Burma to be jointly owned with the military's mining company. So while Canada sends the Burmese military investment capital, Burma sends Canada its heroin. There is well-documented evidence of the Burmese military's complicity with the drug trade. Such international drug trafficking constitutes a grave breach of international security.

[1450]

Hon. members will recall that Dr. Sein Win, Prime Minister of Burma in exile, was invited by the Premier to visit B.C. last December. I joined Dr. Sein Win and Bo Hla Tint on a tour into the downtown east side. We visited the Portland Hotel and the area where heroin from Burma takes its immediate toll. Dr. Sein Win stated clearly at the time that when democracy comes to Burma, the cultivation and production of illicit drugs will be suppressed and Burma trade practices will be brought into line with international law. Achieving democracy in Burma will begin to stem the flow of heroin into British Columbia.

This motion sets aside partisan politics and allows all hon. members of this Legislative Assembly to rally in support of the struggle for democracy in Burma. This motion allows all assembled here to condemn the brutal regime that is withholding power from Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. With this motion, we will join parliaments across Canada and across the world in a united appeal to the UN Secretary General to go forward with an international mandate to achieve a meaningful political dialogue between the Burmese military, Aung San Suu Kyi and the committee representing the People's Parliament and the leaders of the ethnic minorities in Burma.

With this motion, we may also recognize that we have made a big mistake in closing our eyes and ears and denying our responsibility for such atrocities that are far away and do not seem to affect us directly. With this motion, we may just contribute to the lives of ordinary, powerless people in a country far from here -- a country that has been turned from a land of golden temples and exotic grandeur into a concentration camp and killing field. We may help instil some hope for a return to equality and self-determination for a people long oppressed by brutal and lawless rule. That is my hope.

G. Plant: I rise this afternoon to speak to the issue of human rights in Myanmar, the country formerly known as Burma. People who may follow debate in this chamber will know that this is an actively partisan chamber. We seldom agree with each other, across the floor of the House, on the issues that are brought to this chamber.

I think, then, that perhaps there is some significance in the fact that today I rise as one member of the opposition, on behalf of the opposition, to join my voice in support of the motion which the member has just introduced and to all of the words which he has spoken in support of that motion. My own words will be briefer, but I think the issue is important enough that we should have some words on it from this side of the House.

Last month, I am told, Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah, who is the special rapporteur at the fifty-fifth session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, presented his latest findings on the situation in Myanmar. In his report, he outlined some of the causes of the deplorable conditions and the seemingly endless violations of the basic human rights which the citizens of that impoverished country are forced to endure. The list of those violations is long.

They include a fundamental violation of the basic democratic principles as well as extensive, repeated violations of the right to life, the right to physical integrity and the freedoms of thought, expression, association and movement. His report presents a frightening picture of life in a country where democratic principles and human rights are not just ignored; they are trampled on.

The unimaginable conditions that have faced the people of Myanmar for over a decade urgently need to be addressed. The sheer terror that frames the backdrop of their day-to-day lives must be resolved. There are countless horror stories. My colleague is right to point out not only that those stories have reached the ears of the United Nations General Assembly, but that they must not stop there. They must, in addition, reach the ears of all governments everywhere, and they must force action. That is why I rise to join my voice in support of this motion.

[1455]

Hon. Speaker, the junta that has reigned over Myanmar's 45 million inhabitants and has suppressed them through indiscriminate terror continues today in direct violation of countless parts of general human rights codes. A quick chronology of some of the key events that have taken place provides a context for the declaration of opposition to that disregard for human rights, which is represented by the motion before the House today.

In 1987, economic concerns sparked unrest, which led to protests against the governing force of the country. By 1988, student-led protests had been brutally, savagely suppressed. The army seized power, forming the State Law and Order Restoration Council -- SLORC. That same year the National League for Democracy was formed and Aung San Suu Kyi became the general secretary of the NLD. In 1989, Aung San Suu Kyi, who is, as my colleague points out, a courageous spokesperson and symbol for human rights in the world, was placed under house arrest.

In 1990, multiparty general elections were held, and the NLD won 392 out of the 485 seats. Tragically -- appallingly -- no legislature has ever been formed. By 1992 the UN Commission on Human Rights appointed a special reporter to submit a report to the UN General Assembly. Each year since 1993 the special reporter's mandate has been extended. In 1995, Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest, but 1996 saw the arrest or detention of 256 NLD activists. I'm told that 144 of these activists were released three weeks later, but many of the others still remain under the control of the army.

That is only part of a long and horrendous story. In mid-1996, SLORC forcibly relocated some 30,000 members of

[ Page 12204 ]

ethnic minorities in Kayah state and, reportedly, subjected many of those to forced labour -- a practice we now know as ethnic cleansing.

Using the force of century-old legislation, the army has conscripted many of the villagers of Myanmar. The army forces many of them to be human mine detectors and to walk in front of the armed forces personnel, to ensure that they remain uninjured. Villagers have received written orders stating that if they did not leave their villages, they would be regarded as enemies.

And in an apparent effort to break civilian support for armed opposition groups in Shan state, SLORC has forcibly relocated at least 100,000 members of ethnic minorities in Shan state and has reportedly threatened to shoot those who refused to leave their homes. More than 20,000 Shan civilians had fled to Thailand by the end of 1997.

Throughout the past decade, visions of these and other atrocities have dominated Myanmar politics, and they continue as we speak. Instead of looking towards the future, instead of planning and preparing and creating economic stability founded on respect for political and democratic rights, the military government of Myanmar continually exploits those fundamental rights and freedoms of the people of Myanmar and, inevitably, has also driven thousands of them out of their homeland.

[1500]

Canada has provided aid to Myanmar in past years. However, after the 1988 massacre of thousands of pro-democracy student demonstrators in Rangoon, aid provided through CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, was suspended. While Canada has not continued to provide assistance to Myanmar through international financial institutions, it has helped to provide relief to assist refugees through multilateral agencies and non-governmental organizations.

On Friday, April 23, just ten or so days ago, the UN Commission on Human Rights approved the latest in a series of resolutions condemning Myanmar for widespread violations of human rights, including

summary executions, political repression and the use of forced labour. The resolution tabled by the European Union was adopted by consensus by the 53 member states of the commission. The resolution is seven pages. It deplores what it calls an escalation in the persecution of the democratic opposition, particularly members and supporters of the National League for Democracy.

The resolution regrets what it calls the threats of deportation, arrest and physical violence against Aung San Suu Kyi and the continued harassment, arrest and detention of NLD and other democratic-group activists, including the elected representatives to the parliament that has never met. The resolution "strongly urges the government of Myanmar . . . to implement fully the recommendations made by the special rapporteur." The resolution calls on the government to:

" . . . ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedoms of expression, association, movement and assembly; the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary and the protection of the rights of persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities; and an end to violations of the right to life and integrity of the human being, to the practices of torture, to the abuse of women, to forced labour and forced relocations and to enforced disappearances and

summary executions."

It is almost inconceivable to imagine a list of horrors as long as that list. According to the report from the rapporteur, the situation in Myanmar shows no signs of improvement. He states:

"With regard to democratic governance, there is no sign of any movement towards the transfer of power to the duly elected representatives of the people nor the engagement of any meaningful dialogue with the political opposition and the minority communities towards that end.

"This year has witnessed an intensification of the repression, particularly against the NLD and its adherents, resulting in massive arrests of its leaders and followers and in manoeuvres to force their resignation from the party. Despite some progress in the release of a few prominent political prisoners, arbitrary arrests of the rank and file of the party and of many students have led to severe overcrowding in prisons and further deterioration in conditions of detention."

Those are the rapporteur's words.

I join my colleague and my colleagues opposite in endorsing the United Nations initiative to help allow the citizens of Myanmar to participate freely in the political process -- to not be subject to human rights violations and to live without fear.

We join the UN in calling on the government of Burma to establish democracy, to release political prisoners, to improve the conditions of those who are legitimately detained, to ensure the safety of all political leaders, to cease the laying of land mines, to desist from forced conscription of civilians to serve as human minesweepers and to end the displacement of the citizens of Myanmar. These limitations of personal rights and freedoms in all of Myanmar are reprehensible. They warrant our denunciation here today and tomorrow and for as long as it takes to bring about change. We in the B.C.

Liberal caucus stand united in protest against these human rights violations, in support of the UN resolution and in support of the motion which the member has brought before the house.

[1505]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I rise to speak on this motion. As we all know -- and sometimes we forget, living in places like British Columbia and Canada -- freedom and democracy are not easily won and established in other parts of the world. Therefore this debate is of great importance. When we look at events worldwide, and when we also look at our own situation, one should never be complacent about issues such as freedom and democracy.

I am an immigrant from that part of the world. I was born and raised not far away from Burma. I've had a very special place in my heart for that country. Therefore I am troubled, as are all of us, at the passage of events for the last many years in that country. I remember very fondly, years ago as a child growing up in India, being very proud of somebody called U Thant. Those are vivid memories of a young child who learned that U Thant, who was a citizen of that country, was the Secretary General of the United Nations -- perhaps the most famous Secretary General of all time for me, because I still remember his name with fondness.

I think it's important that we recognize that when you have a country like that -- that can produce the U Thants and the Aung San Suu Kyis of the world -- that country has potential. What's happening at this time is that the potential of that country and the potential of its people are being trampled underfoot by a military regime that has actually attempted to negate, and has successfully negated, the results of the last democratic election held in Burma.

[ Page 12205 ]

I know that human rights are something that we all cherish in British Columbia. I know that, in fact, we have a tradition where the late Emery Barnes, the former Speaker of this House, stood in British Columbia with a great deal of pride when we boycotted South African wines. We wanted to make sure that South Africa would join the community of free nations and democratic nations sooner rather than later. I think what we're doing today is symbolic of the struggle of all people, always, who are yearning for freedom and democracy no matter where they are.

Whether or not we live in a democratic world ourselves, in a province or a country, our rights are diminished -- our rights are reduced, in fact -- in value and in significance if there are people across the world whose rights are diminished or denied to them.

This particular motion also addresses the issue of the treatment of minorities. We have a recent, tremendous record of a wonderful equality that prevails in British Columbia. But it wasn't long ago -- it was only about 50 years ago -- that there were inequalities, that there was a lack of franchise, that there were a lack of rights to practise in professions. We know full well what happens to people when you live with less than equal rights, when you live under lack of freedom.

Therefore I think that it's very, very important that we as British Columbians join the rest of the world in raising a voice to ensure that the people of Burma regain their rights and regain their freedoms and regain the dignity that they're being denied right now by a government that is made up of Burmese but obviously is not one that has the best interests of the Burmese people in its heart.

[1510]

It's equally important to recognize that when you have minorities -- and I know that Burma is a country with many ethnic minorities -- that are being forcibly evicted from villages and then being made to work in the form of indentured labour, that's a very tragic situation, and that cannot be allowed to continue anywhere in this world. I believe that as British Columbians and as Canadians, it's imperative for us that we raise our voice and that we do so today.

I also know -- and my colleague the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has pointed it out to me time and time again -- that we have another problem that this military regime actually contributes to. It not only tramples underfoot the rights of its own people, it not only denies its ethnic minorities the right to live in equality, it not only denies some of the basic freedoms to its own people, but it also engages in the production and trade of drugs such as heroin. We know the kind of havoc that those kinds of substances wreak on our people in British Columbia and people all over the world.

Therefore it's imperative that that particular regime be changed -- and changed at the earliest possible . . . .

Obviously, Aung San Suu Kyi has been incarcerated, essentially. She is not allowed to travel, and she isn't free to speak her mind or to organize meetings. It has been expressed by the representatives of the government of Burma in exile that they want to cooperate with other nations of the world to ensure, firstly, that there is freedom and equality and democracy in that country. Secondly -- and equally important for us -- they want to participate with all of the policing agencies across the world to ensure that they don't contribute to the havoc that's being wreaked by drugs on many societies, including our own.

Therefore I want to say that I, on this side of the House, support -- and I know all members support -- this particular motion wholeheartedly, and I hope that this ensures that freedom and democracy in Burma will reign sooner rather than later.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak in favour of Motion 61, the motion on the order paper by the MLA for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows. I thank him for bringing this forward.

I met a remarkable woman this year. I thought, in the context of Motion 61, that I'd like to share her story. Her name is Dr. Win Than, and she lived in Burma in 1988. Her apartment faced onto a large square in the middle of Rangoon, and in that square a pro-democracy group had organized a peaceful demonstration. Dr. Than was in her apartment, and through her window over the day, she saw thousands and thousands of people gathering, assembling to speak against the 30 years of military rule that they had been subject to.

These individuals wanted democracy. They wanted to show an unelected military government that their numbers were large -- that there was not just a small number of people in Burma who wished for a democratic process, but many. Dr. Than listened during the day. She listened to the students sing the national anthem. She watched as families waved flags in time and cadence to the students' singing of the anthem over the day. She watched the military -- dressed in combat fatigues, carrying machine guns -- drive up in trucks, and from her window, she watched them open fire.

There were random shootings of citizens. If you can imagine thousands of people in an area -- people panicking and moving in every direction . . . . There were random shots into the crowd, and people fell. People ran for their lives to avoid what they most surely saw as their impending doom. There were then systematic executions of row upon row upon row of students who had refused to leave. They had refused to run. And they stood there peacefully, line upon line of university students, and continued to sing the national anthem as the soldiers fired and shot them, line after line after line.

[1515]

And from her window, Dr. Than saw that public square drenched in blood and riddled with bodies of people who had only asked, in a peaceful way, for democracy. Dr. Than fled for her life with her family -- her two daughters. She fled the capital, and she worked as a physician in the refugee camps that were set up along the border of Thailand and Burma. She eventually left Burma for political reasons -- left her homeland -- and came to Canada. Her fear for her children was her primary motivator. She felt that this was what she had to do in order to be safe.

Dr. Than, her children and a lot of other Burmese citizens who live in British Columbia would like to go home. In Vancouver, expatriates have assembled to form what has come to be known to me as the Burma round table. And such groups exist in the United States, Europe, Japan -- pretty well every country where people from Burma have moved out and left their homeland.

The Burma Round Table has done a lot in B.C., and it has become a vehicle to elevate the awareness of the bloody military rule in their country. They go out and speak to groups. Amnesty International sponsors them to come into communities. They come to the House here and speak to politicians. They speak to decision-makers in local communities. They spread their message, and they strive to have the

[ Page 12206 ]

outside world help them regain democracy through peaceful means. They do this because they would like to go home. These individuals have seen families and friends left behind. They have seen a homeland that they are not allowed to go back to or do not go back to for fear of political retribution.

Motion 61 speaks to freedom, not only in Burma but around the world. It speaks to the right of an elected government to rule, something we take for granted in this country. It speaks to freedom of speech and expression. It denounces rape, torture, imprisonment and murder of Burmese citizens who passively defy military rule. In 1990, two years after the bloody massacre in that square, the military allowed an election, and Burma elected a democratic government, with 250 of the 385 members belonging to the democratic party. This party, the NLD, was never allowed to rule. And in the last eight years, these elected representatives have been intimidated, jailed, exiled, tortured and killed.

I'd like to show you one example, because it's very illustrative of what has happened. In the Rangoon division, someone who could be similar to us in this House is an MP by the name of Daw San San. She has a bachelor of science degree; she is a teacher at one of the high schools. She has taught zoology in another school, she's studied in Yugoslavia, and she has received a diploma in journalism. She worked for the Department of Labour and was the chairperson for the Rangoon labour union. She also worked as deputy director for the Department of Labour within the government.

This woman spoke to a BBC reporter about the deplorable human rights conditions in her country, and when she did that in 1988 and was critical of the military regime, she was sentenced to imprisonment for 25 years. This has been the fate of many of the elected people since the election in 1990.

[1520]

All governments and citizens in democratic countries must make the necessary diplomatic actions to restore human rights in Burma and do whatever we can from the outside. I urge Canada to take action to ensure that the elected NLD party is recognized as the legitimate government of Burma. Canada must prohibit Canadian investment in Burma, and we must not facilitate, through funds or through consensual agreement that nothing is happening, the serious abuses of human rights that people like Dr. Win Than have brought to us firsthand.

Hon. Speaker, let's use our internationally recognized Canadian talents for diplomacy and peacekeeping to help move Burma towards democracy. I thank the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows for bringing this motion forward.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm very delighted to have the opportunity to rise today to speak in support of Motion 61. This is a motion, as many of the members who spoke before me indicated, that advocates for human rights -- and human rights in Burma. But I would also say that human rights should indeed be respected and honoured in every country across the globe.

There actually is a saying in East Van, where I come from, that started with activists long before my arrival. They taught me that there is much importance in the notion of thinking globally but acting locally, and this is what this motion is about. It is about acting locally -- what we can do to try to advance human rights and the respect of human rights for all communities throughout the world.

It is talking about ensuring, in our communities where we take for granted democracy, the right to vote, the right to be a representative in a duly elected process, the right to make sure that no matter who we are and where we come from, those individuals have the same and equal rights as all people.

Those rights are not always enjoyed by anybody and everybody in some communities. In the situation with Burma, it is horrific to think, in this day and age, as we're heading toward the twenty-first century, that we have these incidents that go on continuously -- for centuries, for decades, for years on end. It is horrific, when we sit down and think about it, as we head toward the twenty-first century, that some 40 years ago, when people were duly elected, somehow they could not have the right to practise and engage in the duly elected process and be recognized in that way.

It is frightening to think, as we speak today, that people are being tortured and people are being raped -- not just physically but mentally as well; not just women but men also. It is frightening to think that there is this military regime that goes on and that actually violently opposes democracy -- that flaunts its violence against democracy by raping the people and by legitimizing their regime. It is frightening when I think about this, because we still see it go on in many different places, and Burma is one of them. As I pick up the paper every day, I also read that this goes on in other communities and countries as well.

[1525]

When I think about the ethnic component -- ethnic cleansing -- and think that the practice of ethnic cleansing is still going on in some communities in some countries on this globe, I think about our history and our background and the fight that people fought for equality and justice long before my arrival. I think about how even in Canada we haven't always enjoyed this full democracy and this full right and recognition. It took years of activism -- men, women and children who were brave and courageous in stepping up to the plate to say, "This must change," and to advance the agenda onward and forward.

The Burmese have actually done this with many of their people, every single day, as they act against the violation of human rights in their own country -- as they peacefully demonstrate against these issues. Here in our own country, from time to time, where we do have demonstrators . . . . Even here they face condemnation because of their activities, such as we've seen with APEC, although not to the extent that these people in other countries do -- although we do sense it from time to time in terms of the disdain that can be shown toward activists when they want to fight and advocate for democracy.

It is very frightening indeed when we think that this is the twenty-first century and that it goes on, on a regular basis, in countries where people seem not to be able to recognize those violations and the integrity of what we need to move forward on in the name of democracy. Not long ago, I was in Vancouver East and attended the Mon International Day. They were celebrating Mon National Day on this occasion. There I had the pleasure of meeting many people in Vancouver and beyond who have been activists in fighting for democratic rights throughout our country and for their people.

It was on the premise that we need to ensure that individuals are recognized for who they are, that individuals have the right to fully participate as legitimate citizens and that there is full recognition that all of us should have self-determination.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

[ Page 12207 ]

When I think about this struggle and the need to be recognized as full and equal participants in our society and about the fight for self-determination, it reminds me, quite frankly, of the issue that we have just finished debating, which is the Nisga'a issue. That's what the aboriginal community in Canada and British Columbia also wanted, and that's what the treaty-making process is also about: recognizing that all individuals -- no matter where we come from or how we arrive at whatever situation and circumstances, and the histories of the past -- need to be fully recognized as equal partners.

They should have the full right to participate equally, and most important of all, they should have the right to self-determination.

The Burmese, with the work that they have done, and the Nobel prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has brought this issue forward -- and the struggle continues for her in raising the awareness of the Burmese situation . . . . In fighting the fight for democracy, she puts her life at risk. I know that she puts her family's life at risk every single day. It is people who actually take that stand who, over the history that we have learned, have advanced democracy's progress.

The UN has recognized the work that needs to be done. I believe that we in Canada recognize that that work needs to be done. Here in British Columbia . . . . I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague the hon. member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows in bringing forward this motion and advancing the issue, not only just amongst his own caucus but for all members of the House, so that we can be educated about these issues and so that we can stand and speak with a unified voice and clearly say that democracy is indeed a right that needs to be extended, not only locally -- here, in British Columbia -- but across the globe and throughout the world.

[1530]

It is hoped that with this motion, the message can be sent to others that we can stand unified to fight for what has been long sought after for the Burmese people. It is hoped that with this motion, by raising the awareness that every time international companies engage in business with countries that engage in blatant violation of their people and the rights of their people, they're indeed supporting that regime . . . . It is that awareness that we need to learn and be consciously aware of all the time.

To put a stop to this violation of individuals' rights, we need to play our part, to be conscious of that and to speak out against the international companies who engage in business with such countries.

I also want to just touch on, for a moment, one of the issues that has been raised: the drug issue. I see this every day in my own riding, in the downtown east side. The drug issue is a major challenge for the people in the downtown east side, and I would extend that to say not just the people of the downtown east side but, really, all across British Columbia. It is frightening to know that there is a country that endorses major drug trafficking and that participates in it. This is a government military regime that engages in and practises it. Why?

Simply for their own good and so that they can stay in stay in power and continue to violate the rights of everybody -- I would say not just in Burma but the people that go beyond. When these drugs extend to the different communities, they don't actually see the harm that is being done to the individuals in those communities.

I see it every day in my own community, in the downtown east side. I see the pain, the suffering and the grief that go on when people actually overdose by drug use. It calls not only for action from the enforcement side to deal with the traffickers but also action from all fronts to look at how we can engage with each other to reduce the harm for the people who are addicted to the drugs, who have been exploited by this process and who have become victims of our system.

In the downtown east side community I would suggest that harm-reduction approaches, along with strong enforcement against trafficking, need to be in place. I'm pleased that members I know across the House and on this side would actually support such actions in order that we could effectively deal with the drug question that we all face in our communities.

Lastly, I simply want to say that it is vitally important that we all stand in unity and with one voice. I know that we do when we stand together, across the House, to say that this atrocious behaviour and practice of a military regime -- that refuses to recognize the democratically elected people of their country, that violently acts against the people who engage in peaceful measures toward democracy and that violently works to stamp out democracy and human rights in all of the people of Burma -- has to be stopped.

It is with this motion that we can work together and think globally but act locally to advance and put forward our support for the people of Burma, to advance their day so that one day they, too, can enjoy the freedoms that we now have in Canada.

D. Symons: I too wish to add my voice in support of this motion. I'm sure we all do support it. Human rights "abuses." That word is almost too mild a word to use -- the word "abuse" -- because we've got used to using it in the household situations, where what's going on here is so much more horrific than that. That's horrific in itself, but this is so much more.

But it's a worldwide phenomena and something that . . . . The situation in Burma is not the only one. We see it daily on our television now -- what's happening in Serbia as the ethnic cleansing of the Albanians and that sort of human rights abuse takes place there. That's before us on our television sets. We hear of it happening in Tibet, with China's occupation of that country, in various parts of Africa, Indonesia and East Timor -- all of those countries, along with Burma or, now, Myanmar. You know, it's this problem of human rights abuses.

[1535]

In the Myanmar situation, I guess, we have something maybe a little unique compared to the others, in that we've had a duly elected government that has never yet taken office -- allowed to be elected, I guess, because the government in power that was really a military junta felt compelled, after the massacre they did in 1988, to allow free and open elections, only to discover when that took place that the people wholeheartedly embraced the idea of a democratic government. I gather that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 percent of the voters turned out. More than 75 percent of those voted for the National League for Democracy, or the NLD party, led by Aung San Suu Kyi.

She is a most courageous and, I think, most determined woman and certainly, as other members have said today, sets an example for the people of the world who maybe do not have democracy in their country. Here's what one person can do. I think the only thing that has saved this young, courageous woman -- not so young now -- from being incarcerated and put out of sight so that she can't raise the awareness of the world, as she's managed to do with the situation in

[ Page 12208 ]

Burma, is the very fact that she is so well known throughout the world now for the work she has done that it's almost impossible. For, as bad as this regime is, they realize that if they were to do that, there would be such an outcry in the world that it would do them more harm to have her put away than to have her, at least, under house arrest.

The military regime is really fronted by an organization that's called the State Law and Order Restoration Council. I guess it harks back, possibly, to Orwell's 1984 , where you have words that have the exact reverse meaning of what they say. That was renamed in 1997 as the State Peace and Development Council. Again, what they perform in that country seems to be just about the opposite of what they are saying. The military generals' campaign of suppression of the National League for Democracy includes arbitrary, repressive laws. They fail the international acceptance of standards, and they contravene international civil and political rights.

Up until 1998 it used threats and intimidation to force MPs -- Members of Parliament -- who had been duly elected in 1990 to resign. Up to that time, they had managed to engineer, shall we say, 46 resignations. The military regime every so often in communities around Burma has public rallies, where you're required to be there. You're fined if you're not there. They are engineered in such a way at these rallies that you're really forced to sign a letter seeking the resignation of a Member of Parliament that you elected. We have something called recall in B.C., but this is not anything at all comparable to recall.

This is a military-organized exercise to give the impression of a recall of an elected MP.

The election commission has dismissed 66 of the people. The election commission, of course, is under the control of the State Law and Order Restoration Council, so they simply have managed to just dismiss the election of 66 of the members: 20 of the members of that elected parliament are in exile; 42 members have been imprisoned for alleged political offences -- probably the most serious offence was that they wanted parliament to meet; and at least two have died in prison. That was up to 1998.

After 1998, the National League for Democracy decided to take whatever steps were necessary to convene the parliament. So they have basically said: "Well, if we won't be allowed to by this ruling junta of military people, we will simply take the power into our own hands as elected people, and we'll call the parliament together." That certainly got the military regime into high gear, and they immediately announced that . . . . Over 250 of the elected members of parliament and over 700 constituency executives and party officials were all put under arrest.

The government then staged giant public rallies against the National League for Democracy and the few other democratic parties that were also elected at that time.

[1540]

We have, in British Columbia, a parliament. We're elected to office. We come to the office here. I don't think any of us can compare or can even imagine the difficulties that happen in other countries when we have experienced in this country a long history of democracy and the use of the Legislature as a way of carrying forth democracy. But in Myanmar it's quite another matter.

I made a private member's statement back on May 9, 1997. I'll just read one part of it. My private member's statement at that time was called "Human Rights and Trade." I said:

"Why should I and each and every other caring person be concerned?" -- In this case, I was talking about what was happening in Third World countries in the way of human rights involving Canadian trade -- "Jampa Cheojor, a 16-year-old Tibetan child, has been in prison since February 1994 for putting up illegal posters protesting the Chinese occupation of Tibet. He has not used or advocated violence. Many novices in monasteries and nunneries between the ages of 11 and 18 have been detained while peacefully demonstrating.

Released juvenile detainees have told of being whipped, kicked, beaten, tortured with electric shocks, sexually abused, forced to perform hard labour and subjected to malnutrition. Many have died in prison, while others, weakened by their ordeal, die within a short time after their release -- this after China has signed the UN convention on the rights of the child. It is little wonder that I have concerns that a bilateral, low-key approach on human rights will be effective? Have we so soon forgotten the Tiananmen Square massacre?"

I just read that because, in a sense, I think what's illustrated there is that we tend to look at things momentarily, and then we go on to something else and we forget it. I just think that maybe we have to remember -- and this motion on the floor today will be passed shortly, I'm sure -- that we must go beyond the words that we're going to be saying in this House today and see that something follows from them, something that will bring a positive result. We find in the motion that -- it says: "Be it resolved that this Assembly deplores the continuing violations of human rights in Burma . . . . " It goes on to other sections, but that's primarily the gist of it -- and we do.

"Be it further resolved that this Assembly urges the military regime of Burma to . . . . " I'm afraid that if we just send them a note and urge them to change their habits that . . . . They've probably had that urging elsewhere. We have to generate among all Canadians, I think, a feeling that it is intolerable that this should be taking place anyplace in the world, and we will do our utmost to see that those governments are treated in such a way that they will change their habits. Indeed, the people of Burma deserve our support.

I suggest that we could possibly boycott goods produced by child labour or by people who are nearly slaves in their employment because of unsafe, unsanitary . . . and inadequate wages. All of these are things that we individually can do to assist people who are in countries where human rights are something . . . . It's only a word to them. It does not really convey any rights that they themselves can enjoy that we in this country do enjoy, which we in this country do enjoy. I would urge everybody, then, besides supporting this motion today, to somehow get involved out there -- that you take

part in a way that will be meaningful for yourself as well as for the people in Burma.

S. Orcherton: What a wonderful day it is today here in Victoria. The sun is shining, the temperature is pleasant, and flowers are blooming all over this very nice city. Best of all, I can look up into the bright blue sky, and there are no bombs.

[ Page 12209 ]

We are indeed blessed to live here in Canada and doubly blessed to live here in British Columbia. For those few of us who live in Victoria -- well, it just doesn't get any better.

[1545]

But in other areas of the world, women, children and men can't live like we do. They can't live with the security and safety inherent in our form of participatory democracy. In spite of the acrimony displayed upon occasion within this House, and in spite of a press that might be seen to sensationalize the trivial, I remain thankful that I live in a country that values concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of movement.

Perhaps, along with many members of this House, I am guilty -- guilty of focusing on the day-to-day events within our small, idyllic corner of the world and of missing significant parts of the bigger picture. Perhaps, along with other members of the House, I am simply overwhelmed by the enormity of the violence that surrounds us. Perhaps it is easier to ignore that global misery than to risk sinking into despair about our seeming inability to do anything. But it is exactly that sense of helplessness -- of giving up, of seeming incapable of taking action -- that plays into the hands of dictators, tyrants and repressive regimes around the world.

I am thankful that the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows has shown the dedication and perseverance necessary to bring this motion to this assembly. I'm thankful because it reminds me that all it takes for democracy to fail is for people of good conscience to stand by and do nothing. It reminds me that all victories start with the most difficult thing, and that is taking the first step.

I am no expert on international affairs or on Burma, but I do have very strong views on what is right and what is wrong. I don't believe it takes a lot of political sophistication to understand that it is wrong to kill, that it is wrong to torture, that it is wrong to imprison people without trial. So it is without reservation that I stand wholly in support of this motion and call upon all members of this House to support this motion.

We live in a society that increasingly seems to find difficulty in distinguishing between right and wrong. Today at this very moment in a land in Southeast Asia, literally thousands of ordinary people live in fear for their lives. They fear to express an opinion, let alone an opinion contrary to the dictates of the ruling military junta. They live in a land where their democratically elected government has been exiled. They live in a land where rape, torture, forced labour and mass arrests are commonplace. And the great difficulty that we face seems to be distinguishing what is right from what is wrong.

Burma's largest trading partner is a country that we in the west consider a model of capitalism at its best. Burma's largest trading partner is Singapore, a country that routinely executes men and women by hanging for possession of heroin. In Singapore death is mandatory for a person caught with half an ounce or more of heroin. In Singapore, Fridays are hanging days. On Friday, September 27, 1996, six people were hanged that morning. Four people had been hanged the previous Friday -- all for drug trafficking in amounts as little as half an ounce. In 1995 more than 50 people were hanged, the majority for drug-related offences.

What makes this particularly distressing is the certain knowledge that Singapore is deeply involved with the military junta in Burma and is fully aware of the Burmese drug trade. Burma currently supplies between 50 percent and 80 percent of the world's heroin trade. It could easily increase production to supply 100 percent of the world's heroin. The vast majority of countries in this world know that to be true. There is no doubt in the international community about the role of Burma and the role Burma has in supplying heroin to the addicts of the world.

There is no doubt in the international community that Singapore is fully aware of these facts. There is something tragically wrong with a country that hangs petty drug addicts while continuing to prosper from trade with an illegal government deeply and singularly involved in the largest heroin operation ever known.

[1550]

Hon. Speaker, I suggested earlier that there are violent conflicts all around the globe. This particular conflict is unique. There is not a myriad of social, ethnic, political and religious reasons involved in understanding the situation in Burma. There really is only one reason, and that reason is solely the obscene profit to be made in the illicit trafficking in heroin. The Burmese military junta has used every conceivable method of coercion and fear to ensure that it maintains control of heroin production, and the international community knows that to be true.

This junta, until November 1997, called itself the State Law and Order Restoration Council -- SLORC, for short. It is now called the State Peace and Development Council. In no way can the current military dictatorship claim legitimacy as the government of Burma. In truth, it doesn't even claim legitimacy as a government; it is a restoration council.

I wish to quote from an address attributed to no less a distinguished Canadian than John Ralston Saul:

"The SLORC is not a body which is open to any form of negotiation in good faith. They are not even open to self-interested compromise. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will be accomplished through attempting constructive engagement. We've been at it formally now since 1990. Nothing has happened. Things are getting worse, not better . . . we've been at it since 1962. Nothing has happened. Nothing is going to happen. There is no constructive engagement, there never will be with these people, and in the process, they have been left alone to destroy Burma.

"More precisely, you cannot engage in constructive engagement regarding Burma with a group of rogue soldiers who are not the government of Burma. It is a fundamental error to accept the illusion that the SLORC is the government of Burma. They are not the government of Burma. They don't govern, except by force of arms. They don't have the title of government of Burma by any standards, not by the Western ethical standards which we're afraid to speak of in Asia.

But much more important, they don't exist as the government of Burma by Asian standards -- not by Asian ethical standards or historical or spiritual or political or even economic. It is very important for us to understand that. When we are dealing with the SLORC, we are dealing with a group which fails, by Asian standards, to qualify as government. We have to be clear enough about this in our own minds to find the strength to say to other governments in Asia: 'By your own standards, this is a rogue government, not a government at all.' "

We here in British Columbia may think we are without influence on the international stage. I do not hold that view. We have significant influence. It behooves us all, as good citizens of our country and of our communities, to do what we are able to put an end to the atrocities in Burma. Burma's largest trading partner is Singapore, a city-state that enjoys trade privileges with most western industrialized countries. Britain, France and the United States are the top five investors

[ Page 12210 ]

in Burma. Canada and in particular British Columbia have developed lengthy and special relationships with these countries. This motion, accepted by this House, will receive notice by our partners.

The real question, however, is not about our influence on the international stage or how effective a motion this might be. The real question is: what do we stand for? It is in articulating our principles, in our condemnation of rogue governments like Burma, in expressing our horror and opposition to the brutalities visited upon the Burmese people that we take a stand. We can condemn the SLORC for the group of thugs and criminals that it is. We can take a stand against offering any respectability to an illegal military junta. We can take a stand for the rights of all people.

I encourage all members of this House to set aside partisan differences and to unanimously support this motion to take the right stand.

B. Goodacre: As a British Columbian, it's indeed a pleasure to listen to my colleagues in this Legislature show such an outpouring of compassion for a beleaguered people so far away from us as the Burmese. In the years that I've been involved with politics and social action in this province, British Columbia has demonstrated itself, time and time again, to be a home and a haven for people who are fleeing from oppression in other parts of the world.

[1555]

I live in a part of British Columbia that's quite removed from the urban areas where most of these people find their way, but years ago I had an opportunity to become fairly close friends with a refugee family from Chile, in the Terrace area. As I'm listening to the very detailed accounts of my colleagues of the situation in Burma . . . . I thank them very much for the extensive work that they've done on researching the Burmese situation and for sharing it with us.

The parallels between the things that my friend went through under the situation when Allende was killed in Chile and the Pinochet regime came in and did very much the same kinds of things that we're seeing happen in Burma today . . . . The impact that it has on individuals and their families when they have to live in exile -- away from their families, away from their countries for years and years and years . . . .

The story that our colleague from Vernon shared with us about her friend the physician who had to witness that horrible tragedy that day many years ago drives home the kinds of things that we don't have to deal with in our lives. It does beg the question that has come up with many of the previous speakers. The powerlessness that we face, in terms of what we do as a privileged people living in a privileged part of the world where we're safe from a lot of this horror . . . . Are we all that powerless to do something about it?

One member spoke about how we just talk about these things and then it passes on, and the next day or the next hour we're onto something else. Speaker after speaker that we've heard today reiterated the need for us as a group and for us as individuals to seriously consider the role we can play in terms of economic sanctions, in terms of letter-writing campaigns and in terms of support for organizations like the round table and organizations like Amnesty International, which are devoting their time, effort and economic power that they have to try to change the world to make it a better place.

I want to extend my thanks to our colleague from Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows for bringing this matter to our attention, and I join with my colleagues in extending our support to the parliamentarians of Burma in their efforts to regain their legitimate role in their own country. I think that it is really something for us to consider -- the role we're going to play in the future in helping the government-in-exile of Burma reattain their place of legitimacy in their own country.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, to close the debate.

W. Hartley: In closing debate on Motion 61, I want to first of all thank the hon. members who have spoken on both sides of the House -- very thoughtful contributions in support of the motion. Your sincere and heartfelt words will create a greater sense of hope for the people of Burma and indeed for all oppressed people. As duly elected parliamentarians, we have together raised our objections against the political repression in Burma. In doing so, we have joined parliamentarians in legislative assemblies in Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Australia, the United States and Great Britain. After approving this motion, we may soon be joined by legislatures in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.

The member for Richmond Centre talked about follow-up on this motion, as did the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. I want to assure members that, I submit, we will call on Canada, and we'll call on Canada's trading partners in Southeast Asia and the European Union. I would suggest that we continue until all world leaders, from Jean Chrétien to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, have taken some sort of action in support of the Burmese people.

[1600]

We're all standing up together to uphold the principle that it is the people, as citizens and voters, and parliament which represents them that is supreme -- that it's the democratically elected Burmese parliament that is supreme, and that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy is the true government of the Union of Burma.

Thanks to Dr. Sein Win, we've made the connection between Burma's problems and the hard drugs on the streets of Vancouver and outlying communities. Hon. Speaker, despite what the Fraser Institute claims, I believe that the war against drugs is not lost. We've now just begun to focus on a major enemy, the Burmese military junta -- that brutal gang of drug traffickers and murderers who have breached the Geneva convention and committed war crimes against humanity and against their own people under international law.

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Dr. Sein Win are focusing the attention of the world on the atrocities and the abuse of

[ Page 12211 ]

human rights in Burma. Dr. Sein Win, Bo Hla Tint and the rest of his cabinet-in-exile are very patient. Their language and their strategy are non-violent. Their support is building, from the many people they meet as they travel across the world explaining the crisis in Burma in people-to-people encounters.

A few months ago, I joined Dr. Sein Win and members of the Vancouver Burmese community for a dim sum meal in Vancouver's Chinatown. My six-year-old daughter was with me. Dr. Sein Win was quite taken with my daughter. He talked about how he was forced to escape Burma just weeks before his own daughter was born. She's nine now, and he's never seen her.

My admiration for the strength, the patience and the wisdom of the philosophy that guides the leaders of the Burmese pro-democracy movement cannot be overstated. They deserve our respect and support. The people of Burma are gentle but strong, patient and determined. They are bright lights in the darkness.

It is in everyone's interest to connect the people of British Columbia, Canada and the international community with the people of Burma. I believe we have shown today that our provincial Legislature can help to send the people of Burma a message of hope for their future. Again let me thank all hon. members -- those who spoke and those who will vote on this motion -- and let me thank Dr. Yawnghwe and the Vancouver Burma Round Table for their great assistance and their great patience in getting us to this moment in the history of this Legislature.

[1605]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

[1610]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply A. For the information of the members, they will continue to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 53.

BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that Bill 53, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

This bill amends ten statutes with respect to initiatives related to the 1999 budget. The Build BC Act, the Highway Act and the Land Title Act are amended to facilitate the transfer of highway land and infrastructure to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. This is another step towards the full capitalization, which is supported by the auditor general.

There are also a number of amendments to update the Financial Administration Act, as we move down this path. Sections 1, 23 and 32 of the act are amended to reflect changes in accounting policy on capitalization and fiscal agencies' loans, so that the Financial Administration Act clearly deals with operating transactions that involve non-cash expenses.

The auditor general, in his report on the estimates, raised concerns that the legislation requiring the government to present interim financial statements is unclear. In response,

section 11 of the Financial Administration Act is amended to clarify that the timely interim financial statements will be presented each time annual estimates of the revenues and expenditures are presented to the Legislative Assembly.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The Financial Administration Act will also be amended to formally establish the Economic Forecast Council. This group of private sector forecasters has provided helpful advice this year, as it has done for the previous two years. It will now be a permanent and mandatory feature of the budget process. The advice that the council gives on the economic outlook will continue to be published in the budget reports. These two measures form part of the government's response to the recommendations of the auditor general's recent report.

The Ferry Corporation Act is amended to increase the corporate debt limit from $975 million to $1,350 million.

The Industrial Development Incentive Act is amended to increase the funding cap on the industrial incentive fund to $500 million from $450 million. This will allow the government to continue to utilize the industrial incentive fund to make loans and investments to strategic economic development projects.

There are a number of legislative amendments and provisions that affect the transfer of assets and liabilities among the provincial government, B.C. Transit and the new Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, and address a number of other matters related to the startup of the GVTA.

[1615]

The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act was passed by the Legislature at the 1998 spring session. The GVTA Act requires that the transfer of assets and liabilities from B.C. Transit and other provincial agencies to the GVTA be effective on March 31, 1999. The transfer of assets and associated debt allows the GVTA to take over responsibility for managing a comprehensive, integrated transportation system for the lower mainland.

Although the amendments in the bill before us deal with details of financial administration and updates to a number of statutes, I do want to take this opportunity to note the significant accomplishment that has been achieved over the last two years, which has led to the launch of the GVTA.

To facilitate the last steps of the transfer and associated debt restructuring, there are several amendments to the Municipal Finance Authority Act. These amendments update the borrowing powers of the Municipal Finance Authority to accommodate the transfer of the portion of B.C. Transit's assets and debt related to transportation services in the lower mainland to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, and also to accommodate the debt of regional hospital districts.

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act is amended to provide for borrowing by the greater Vancouver regional district on behalf of the GVTA, as well as the two other regional authorities: the greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district and the greater Vancouver water district.

In addition, additional powers are granted to the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia and to the greater Vancouver regional district to issue securities and grant

[ Page 12212 ]

indemnities with respect to debt obligations transferred under the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. As well, there is provision for the restructuring of the debt of the Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd., most of which is being converted from fiscal agency loans to prepaid capital advances.

There are also amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to clarify provisions related to the regional road provisions in the GVTA Act, in order to address the concerns that are related to the municipal designation of the regional road network.

Finally, there are also related amendments to the B.C. Transit Act and the Financial Administration Act which will clarify

definitions and add Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd. and designated organizations to the list of those that can receive prepaid capital advances.

G. Farrell-Collins: Bill 53 is the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999. It's essentially a miscellaneous statutes amendment act for the budget. There are a number of sections that are being amended, and in committee stage members of our caucus will be examining them in more detail. I do want to extend my thanks to the ministry for the briefing that was accorded members of the opposition to help clarify some of the technical aspects. We do have some detailed questions in some of the areas as to how that will all come into force. Those will take place in committee stage, which I understand will likely be tomorrow.

There are certain issues that continue to exist: the way the GVTA is structured and the way this piece of legislation will continue to transfer those assets to the GVTA. Those issues will most likely be raised in the estimates process, as we continue to see how that relationship unfolds and develops over time. It seems to be far from harmonious. There are certainly issues with relation to B.C. Transit and SkyTrain and other issues of pretty serious political and governance concern that will be raised at that time.

There are two other issues, I think, which should cause people some concern with relation to this bill. One in particular should cause people grave concern, and that's the raising of the B.C. Ferries debt. My colleague from Richmond Centre will be speaking after myself and will make some further comment on that. But we have a piece of legislation here -- or one clause in this legislation -- that is going to raise the cap for the debt of the B.C. Ferry Corporation by a significant amount. In fact, it will be raised from $975 million -- which is just under $1 billion -- to $1.35 billion.

[1620]

That's a fairly significant increase in the debt. I was reading in the paper today that it's pretty clear -- and I'm probably more surprised than just about anybody -- that virtually all of that increased debt is a result of cost overruns on the fast ferry project and significant mismanagement of that Crown corporation since this government came into power a number of years ago. Indeed, the Ferry Corporation had an accumulated debt, after however many years of service since the 1960s when it become a Crown corporation, of about $16 million or $18 million in 1991.

It now will have a debt of $1.35 billion -- a very, very significant increase in the debt of that Crown corporation in a very short period of time.

If people were getting value for that money, I think they would feel more comfortable with that. They would see that there is an investment taking place and that there is some benefit accruing to them. But to date, as of today, the fast ferry project -- which is consuming some $450 million, or half a billion dollars of that debt -- has yet to carry one paying passenger. It's a number of years behind schedule, hundreds of millions of dollars -- well over 100 percent -- over budget, and we still haven't seen any passengers carried by one of the three fast ferries nor have we managed to sell or to line up future purchases of the fast ferries that are being constructed here in British Columbia.

When you look at this piece of legislation, although there's really only one line that deals with it, it's a fairly significant story that's told underneath. I know that the member for Richmond Centre will have some comments about that today and again tomorrow in committee stage, and I know that it will be canvassed fairly extensively during the estimates process as we move to that later this year.

Secondly, there is an increase in the industrial incentive fund of $50 million -- from $450 million to $500 million. Other than a general comment by the Minister of Finance as to what that money's going to be used for, we haven't heard any specifics. So we'll be canvassing further in committee stage to determine exactly what that money's going to be used for. Does the government have a plan, a business plan, for where that money's going? Do they know where it's going? Do they know why it's needed?

And have they set up the appropriate measures to ensure that any money that is spent by that fund in fact returns some sort of economic benefit to the people of British Columbia, unlike what happened with the fast ferry project? We'll be looking for some accountability on that before we grant that $50 million.

Thirdly, the Economic Forecast Council legislation that's contained in this bill to establish in law a forecasting council and to help the government determine whether or not their economic forecasting models are realistic is an interesting one. The auditor general was pretty strong in his comments about the way this government mismanaged, misled and did a whole bunch of other things. I think the words used were that they inappropriately reported their estimates forecast to this House around the budget fiasco of 1996 and 1997.

This is, in very small part, a reaction to the auditor general's recommendations or comments that the people of British Columbia don't have faith that their own government is telling them the truth. They don't have faith that the government is setting its forecasts for the budget year in an objective way. As a result, the auditor general made some pretty strong recommendations around that. We believe that if the government were to just tell people the truth and if the public accounts process were to work through its way, we could make these determinations.

If you look back at what happened in 1995-1996, that time when they were preparing or reporting the previous year's financial status and forecasting the future year's financial status, one can see that in fact the people in the Ministry of Finance were pretty spot-on. They had pretty much determined what the revenues were going to be. It was in fact at the political level that those numbers were boosted well beyond and above the comfort level of the Ministry of Finance. That was done, clearly, in an attempt for the government to report two balanced budgets and get themselves elected in the 1996 election.

Those balanced budgets evaporated within days of the election. The rest of it is history. Unfortunately, it's history we continue to pay for today.

[1625]

[ Page 12213 ]

There is simply no faith amongst the people of British Columbia that this government is prepared to tell them the truth and give them the honest goods about the state of the public's finances. As a result, you have to have outside bodies come in and regulate or help to determine and publicly report upon the actions and the forecasts of the government. I think it's a pretty sad day when you can't even trust the numbers that are given to you by the Ministry of Finance in any way, shape or form and have to bring in outside people to do that. So we'll have, obviously, further comments on those.

There are also, as the minister said, significant transfers of assets. This is a debate that's been going on with the comptroller, the Ministry of Finance and the auditor general over the last number of years, as to how to account for the entity, how it's going to look, what's going to be capitalized and what isn't going to be capitalized. This implements that. We'll be examining that in a little more detail in committee stage. I look forward to moving into the committee stage so we can get answers to some of those questions.

D. Symons: As mentioned by the previous speaker, I do have a couple of concerns regarding this particular Budget Measures Implementation Act. They revolve, of course, around those particular areas that I am the critic responsible for.

The first one that is of much concern to me is indeed, as mentioned before, the Ferry Corporation Act and the increasing of the debt cap for that corporation by $375 million. That turns out to be a 38 percent increase. Unfortunately, it's not the only increase that's happened over the last short period of time. If we take a look back at the beginning of the NDP in office, I find out that we have . . . . Basically, if you take off the two superferries and say, well, that was started by the previous government, so therefore we won't count that as their responsibility . . . .

Reducing that from the previous cap of $975 million, I get about $400 million worth of debt that we can say, up until recently, was added to the debt of the Ferry Corporation by this government. If we add on top of that the fact that they are now increasing that number by 38 percent, we're in real trouble in that corporation. Any other business -- if it was private and not government, with endless deep taxpayer pockets -- would find that it would basically be bankrupt.

We now have more debt in the Ferry Corporation than we have assets. This is only compounding that problem with that corporation. So I have real problems and certainly will, in committee stage, be asking for some explanation of where this money has gone and where this increase is intended to go. That's because I think it's important, before we say okay to this, that we know what the purpose of it is and how we've managed to get to the sorry state where the corporation is in such bad condition that they have to add another $375 million to the possible debt of that corporation.

We also find that there are some changes to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. Indeed, it seems like it was just a year ago -- as a matter of fact, it was just a year ago -- that we passed that act in this House. They are now bringing in some amendments. Some of them, I understand, are basically amendments that the GVTA had some difficulty with. They thought it was unclear on the word "limit," and there I notice that they brought in . . . . But there are some others that I'm beginning to wonder about and would like to ask some questions on -- some changes to the powers to exempt a portion of that particular act.

We also have some changes to the Highway Act. I guess one of the things I have concerns with is when the government is bringing in legislation that says "is deemed to . . . . " Those words, "deemed to," always seem to raise a little bit of concern in my mind -- and also when they talk about retroactivity. That comes in later on in one of the further acts. I'm just quickly flipping pages, trying to find the retroactive sections in here. But that also raises concerns which I will explore further when we get into the committee stage of this particular bill. So I guess it's just a bit of a heads-up to the government.

Those are sections that I will be concerned about and be asking questions on when we get to that particular stage of the bill.

[1630]

Hon. D. Lovick: In the absence of the Minister of Finance, it's my pleasure to thank members opposite for their comments on the bill and to say that I know we will have a lively debate in committee stage on this bill, to judge from the comments that were made.

With that, I would then move second reading of Bill 53.

Second reading of Bill 53 approved on division.

Bill 53, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Lovick: Acting for the Minister of Finance, I would now call Bill 55.

PROBATE FEE ACT

(second reading)

Hon. D. Lovick: I move that Bill 55, Probate Fee Act, now be read a second time.

Bill 55 confirms in law the practice in British Columbia of charging probate fees on estates over $25,000 in value. This follows a Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning probate fees levied by the province of Ontario. The court ruled that Ontario had a legal authority to levy probate fees, but they must be set by legislation rather than by regulation. The Supreme Court's decision was in relation to Ontario's probate fees. However, the decision has made it necessary for British Columbia and other provinces to review their probate fees and to take action if necessary.

Ontario, Newfoundland, Manitoba and British Columbia have reacted to the Supreme Court's decision by introducing legislation to ensure probate fees are levied in a way that addresses the shortfall found by the court.

I want to make it very clear that this legislation will not result in any increase in probate fees in British Columbia. Rather, Bill 55 will mean that probate fee revenue can continue to help pay for the costs of providing court services. By doing so, the government is in the position to continue to offer other court services such as family court and child maintenance enforcement at little or no cost.

G. Plant: I rise to join the debate on Bill 55, a bill that I will oppose. There are, it is said, two certainties in life: death and taxes. By some miracle, the NDP have, in Bill 55, now

[ Page 12214 ]

found a way of merging death and taxes by deciding to tax death. I'm disappointed that the Finance minister is not here herself to speak in support of what I think is an offensive revenue measure. It is offensive on a number of fronts.

The bill really raises two sets of public policy issues. The first is what might be called the issues that arise on a going-forward basis -- that is, a tax called a fee that this bill will empower government to levy from the day that it comes into force -- forward. Really, there are public policy issues about the fairness of imposing what amounts to a tax on death, and I want to talk about those in a few minutes.

[1635]

The second set of public policy issues, though, has to do with what the bill does to rewrite the history of governments' past actions in levying this fee, which was in fact a tax and which is now going to be called a fee. What the government is doing in this bill is rewriting history by legislating retroactively, which for this government has become a fairly well established practice -- in this case, legislating retroactively back to 1988 and so rewriting something like 11 years' worth of history.

And it's adding that special flavour of an immunity, which is a way that this particular NDP government has found convenient to excuse itself from the tiresome inconvenience of citizens exercising their democratic rights to take legal action, by ensuring that the government is legislatively immune from that action. Thus it's ensuring that government does not stand on the same playing field in terms of the rule of law and in terms of the way the judicial system treats citizens in British Columbia.

Those issues around retroactivity and immunity are the second set of issues -- issues around what happens when government makes its own rules for itself and gives itself a special status in the courts. I will also deal with those issues in due course, but I want to move to, I guess, the first part of my remarks with a bit of history.

As the minister correctly pointed out, in October of last year the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling in a case out of Ontario concerning the estate of a person named Eurig. In that ruling the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the probate fee scheme as it was being administered in Ontario. The court examined the probate fee scheme that Ontario was administering and made the observation that Ontario was levying a fee on applications for probate that was calculated as a percentage of the value of the estate. So if the estate were relatively large, then the amount paid as a fee would be significantly more than in the case of an estate of modest value.

The Supreme Court of Canada, as I understand their ruling, said that from the perspective of the constitution, that's basically not what can be correctly called a fee. Rather, that is something that more correctly has to be characterized as a tax. There are rules under our constitution for how governments can acquire the power or the right to tax. They have to come into this assembly and pass a bill. They can't do it by order-in-council or by regulation. What Ontario was doing was levying this fee through a series of regulations directed at how the court system operated in Ontario.

What Ontario had failed to do was pass the necessary legislation to give the government of Ontario the power to levy the tax.

I think it's important to recognize that that's not merely a matter of form, as to whether a government chooses to levy a charge, a tax, a royalty, a fee -- call it what you will -- on its citizens by means of a regulation, as opposed to by means of taxation. If government charges fees by regulation, that's a decision-making process that happens in the cabinet room or sometimes in the minister's office. It happens in a context where there is no direct public scrutiny. There is no transparency.

There is a different kind of accountability -- a much reduced accountability, I would suggest, and certainly less direct accountability. The whole thing has about it, in many cases, the flavour of something being done in secret behind closed doors, as though government were not terribly happy about the fact that they're having to introduce this measure.

[1640]

A tax, on the other hand, can only be imposed by government introducing a bill on the floor of this Legislature. That means that we in this House have the opportunity to debate it. We in the Legislative Assembly have the ability to exact a small measure of accountability from the government and -- who knows? -- if the views of us in opposition are persuasive, it may well be that our opposition here in this chamber could cause some trouble for the government. That's the mechanical distinction, I suppose, between fees and so on charged by way of regulation or order-in-council and taxes charged by way of statute.

That's really what the government of Ontario had done when they introduced by cabinet order the regulations which imposed the probate fee that gave rise to the litigation in Ontario. That's what the Supreme Court of Canada said that the government of Ontario could not do. What the government of Ontario did was unconstitutional. It tried to levy what was in substance and in effect a tax, under the guise of calling it a fee. That was fundamentally dishonest on the part of the government of Ontario, and it was a form of illegality that the court decided was serious enough to warrant its intervention. And the court struck down the regulation, the fee, in Ontario.

As it turns out, the fee that caused the Eurig family to take the Ontario government to court -- the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will -- was a fee that was implemented by the Ontario NDP in the mid-1990s, I think. I don't remember the exact date. It was a situation where admittedly the government, prior to that, had been charging an ad valorem fee for probate, but I guess it was not a fee that was so large as to excite public complaint.

However, when the Bob Rae NDP government essentially tripled the fee by raising it to an amount virtually the same as that which we have in the bill before us, that's what caused the Eurig family to take issue and the lawsuit to begin, with the result that I've talked about.

[ Page 12215 ]

[1645]

Curiously enough, in February of 1997 the government of British Columbia, an NDP government looking for revenue enhancement sources, decided that what was done in Ontario was good enough for British Columbia. So the government of British Columbia, on April 1, 1997, raised the fees which were being charged for the probate of estates by 133 percent, which is well more than doubling the fees. The way in which that was done was by regulation. So the government of British Columbia, in its enthusiastic desire to strip assets out of the people who have to use the court system, ended up creating for itself exactly the same problem which the government of Ontario had.

As of October 23, 1998, we knew for a certainty here in British Columbia that the probate fee system that was being administered by the NDP was unconstitutional. Here we are six months later, and we see the NDP solution to having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, in the form of Bill 55. Let's be clear, then. Where we are before the passage of this bill is that the government of British Columbia is currently collecting a fee which is really a tax. They are doing it by way of regulation rather than by legislation and are therefore acting illegally and unconstitutionally. This bill attempts to solve that problem.

I want to say something about the mechanics of how these fees work. If you are somebody who is the executor of the estate of a deceased person -- it may have been your late husband or wife or a member of your family -- and you want to have the power granted to you under a will to administer the estate of your deceased loved one, you really have no choice. You have to go up to court. If you want to have the powers given to you under the will, you have to apply for a grant of letters of administration or for the power to act as an executor.

Interestingly enough, when you go to the court registry to do that, you actually pay a court filing fee. I think the amount is $208. That fee presumably represents what the court system judges is a fair amount in relation to the cost of the service being provided. It doesn't go up or down according to the size of the estate.

This probate fee, which is the subject of the bill in front of us, is what goes beyond that and adds the additional fee, which on estates over $50,000 can amount to $14 for every $1,000 worth of the estate. If we are looking at estates where the value is $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 -- which is not unusual these days if the deceased person happened to own a piece of real estate somewhere in British Columbia -- then we are talking about fees in the order of some thousands of dollars. That is the basic mechanism or process which this fee applies to.

With that as the context, I want to talk for a minute or two about what I said was the first set of public policy issues, and that is the public policy questions around the propriety or wisdom of death taxes -- because really, that is what this is.

It's called the Probate Fee Act; that's what we have in front of us. That's kind of an unusual title, because the Supreme Court of Canada made it pretty clear that the thing that was called a probate fee was really a tax. I can imagine a government, which would want to be honest about what it was doing with the citizens of British Columbia and would want to be honest in its response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, looking at the challenge of how they are going to bring this fee into compliance with the law and saying to themselves: "Well, it's really a tax.

It's a percentage amount charged on the value of estates, and it's really a tax. So we'll introduce a bill that will fix the illegality -- the unconstitutionality -- problem, but we'll be honest and we'll call it a tax. We can call it a probate tax, or we can call it a death tax."

[1650]

I suppose you could say that it's a tax charged for the service of probate. But given that for man