1998 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 2

[ Page 7205 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today in the members' gallery we have a special and distinguished visitor from Trinidad and Tobago. His Excellency Robert Sabga is the High Commissioner to Canada for Trinidad and Tobago, and he is accompanied by Stephen Kangal, a counsellor at the high commission in Ottawa. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, it's a pleasure for me also to welcome His Excellency Robert Sabga, the High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago, to the House today, along with his counsellor, Stephen Kangal. Trinidad and Tobago is a very special country for me, as my wife is from Trinidad, and our oldest daughter was born in Trinidad. I'd ask the House to make these distinguished guests welcome in the House.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have two introductions. Firstly, we have 70-plus grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my constituency, along with their teacher Mr. Ron Boulding. I would like the House to make them welcome, please.

As well, there are several lawyers from the ministry who are touring the building, learning the process of how this particular building and the people in it function. Those lawyers -- David Bush, Heidi Hughes, Wendy McKittrick, Karen Mill, Neena Sharma, Judith Payne, Stephanie Weinhold, Dorothy Wong -- are present in the gallery today. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Last fall at the APEC conference, the province of British Columbia signed a memorandum of understanding with the Commission on Higher Education of the Republic of the Philippines. Today we are joined in the galleries by some other special visitors from the Philippines. We are joined by the Secretary of Education for the Philippines, Erlinda Pefianco. She is accompanied by her daughter Isabel Martin and by Ron Compton from ARA Consulting. Would the House please join me in making them most welcome.

G. Plant: We have in the gallery today some British Columbians who are committed to making our streets and highways safer and to making our justice system fairer. I'm pleased to introduce the incoming president of the Trial Lawyers Association, David Klein; the outgoing president, David Montague; Carla Terzariol; and also, representing the Traffic Safety Coalition, Mr. Gordon Adair. I hope that the House will make these people welcome.

W. Hartley: In the precincts today, visiting from my constituency of Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, we have Malkit Purewal and his son Gary. Mal is the president of the Fraser Valley Agricultural and Growers Association. They are here today with a number of agriculturists, meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Please welcome them.

J. Sawicki: I would like to introduce a delegation that is here from the municipality of Santo André, S\tao Paulo metropolitan area, in Brazil. With us today are the mayor, Celso Daniel; the director of planning, Mr. Irineu Bagnariolli Jr.; the professor of architecture and planning with the University of S\tao Paulo, Dr. Erminia Maricato; and Mr. Jeroen Klink, the policy adviser to the mayor. They are accompanied by Peter Boothroyd, a professor at the Centre for Human Settlements at UBC, and Erika DeCastro.

I want to say that this delegation is here to work out the last details of a partnership-in-technology-transfer project through CIDA to help build sustainable communities in Brazil on a watershed management model. I hope that the House will join me in making them very welcome and in wishing them well in their endeavours.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three constituents of Kootenay visiting the House. They are John Konkin, Brian Beresford and Bruce Macneill. They are all three involved in the forest industry in the riding of Kootenay, and I would ask that the House please make them welcome.

R. Thorpe: This morning I had the pleasure of doing a tour of Royal Roads University. During my tour, I had the opportunity of meeting with some students taking entrepreneurial management, the future of our great province. The students were John Fleming from Richmond, Aaron Miller from White Rock and Bryan Matthews from Summerland. I'd ask this House to please make them welcome.

J. Smallwood: I was just advised of a memorable event this weekend. I understand that the member for Prince George-Mount Robson celebrated a birthday. I would like the whole House to join us in sending Lola a happy birthday wish.

The Speaker: Any further introductions? Thank you very much, members.

Oral Questions

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

AND SIX MILE RANCH PROJECT

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, last week in this House we listened as members of this government sanctimoniously proclaimed themselves innocent of having tried to influence the Agricultural Land Commission on the Six Mile project. We found out on the weekend that the truth is somewhat different than what we heard last week. We heard from two members of the ALC, who said that there has been an inordinate amount of pressure brought to bear on that commission by members of this government. I don't think one of those commissioners said that this government conducted itself appropriately.

Will the Minister of Agriculture stand up in the House today, do the honourable thing and proclaim himself in accord with the comments of those commissioners who said that this government has improperly tried to influence that commission?

Hon. C. Evans: Thank you, hon. member, for the opportunity. You know, it takes a whole lot of courage to take a position and stick with it. A weak and cowardly position is to start one place and move all over the map according to what day it is, what year it is or what the polls say or what the press says.

There are two people in this House with the right that goes with courage and conviction to ask these kinds of ques-

[ Page 7206 ]

tions. One would be the member for Kamloops, and the other would be the member for Burnaby-Willingdon. That member over there comes from a party that took one position last year and takes another position today. He doesn't know what he believes in. That's the answer.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Matsqui on his first supplementary.

M. de Jong: I can think of a lot of responses, hon. member, but let me use the response that the member of the Agricultural Land Commission used. That is that this minister is out of line -- period.

The minister will know that the Premier's own guidelines say that a minister may not contact or make representation to a commissioner hearing a case or that may reasonably be expected to hear a case. This minister did just that. He tried to politically interfere with a process that's supposed to be independent. Will he stand here and do the honourable thing and resign his office?

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, will it have more meaning if I point at the hon. member as I deliver my answer?

There has been a lot of controversy on the matter of this issue as it's moved from the board to a declaration of the provincial interest. The people on this side of the House have attempted to work that out, with honesty and integrity, with the community. Meanwhile, the people on the other side, including the guy who's pointing his finger . . . . He's sitting there alongside the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, who said in July last year: "I think it's a tremendous failure that Cathy McGregor couldn't even get cabinet to listen to the people of Kamloops" -- and declare it in the provincial interest. What do you think now, hon. member? He's sitting next to his leader, who said . . . .

[2:15]

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson wrote to our government and said: "I write to confirm my support for referral . . . and due consideration of the issue of provincial interest." Hon. Speaker, that side of the House was crying for this thing to be declared in the provincial interest. And when it is, after considerable agonizing, they come in here and try to somehow colour the process as if there was some kind of interference.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take it easy, everyone. Just take it easy. Hon. members, we won't proceed until there is order in the chamber.

I recognize the member for Matsqui for a second supplementary.

M. de Jong: How pathetic! Gus Horn is a member of the Agricultural Land Commission. He said that it was so clear what the government wanted -- what would have made life easiest for them politically. That's the message that this minister delivered to the Agricultural Land Commission. That's the pressure he brought to bear. That's how he tried to influence this independent commission.

The Speaker: Your question.

M. de Jong: Will the minister stand here today and say that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Horn were lying? And if he won't say that, will he do the honourable thing -- you've still got a chance, minister -- and resign his office?

Hon. C. Evans: I will not say that those people were lying. I think those are fine people. I disagree with their opinion, but they are not liars. They are not bad people, and they don't change their position according to what they think is popular. It's okay if you attack me, because I do this work, but I don't really think it's okay to be dragging other people in here and changing their words and changing what you think they said.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. C. Evans: The chair of the Land Commission, Kirk Miller, is on the record, in a CBC interview, as denying that he was bullied. He says that he has no problem with MLAs or their staff trying to serve their constituents. If the chair of the commission, who the minister talks to all the time . . . . The previous minister talked to him all the time, and the minister before that and the minister before that. If the chair of the commission says that he wasn't bullied, then where is the proof that the hon. member is talking about? Besides waving his hand and pointing and shouting . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. C. Evans: . . . and raising his voice, where is the proof that there was any pressure on those folks?

C. Clark: In his report on the Six Mile project, Murray Rankin said it is the intent of the Agricultural Land Commission Act "to confer upon a quasi-judicial tribunal the authority to safeguard the relatively scarce agricultural land base of the province." What this minister has done is pressure a quasi-judicial body to skew its decision in favour of what is politically important to the government. That is what this minister has done.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

C. Clark: Doesn't the minister understand that it is wrong to pressure a quasi-judicial body and that it is his duty to uphold the independence of the Agricultural Land Commission?

Hon. C. Evans: I really like that question. It's a good question, hon. member. Yes, this minister understands and takes incredibly seriously (1) my job as the person primarily responsible for protecting agriculture and agricultural land and (2) the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission.

A whole lot of what's been going on -- and the buck stops here; you're right to ask me -- for me over the course of the last two years, affected not least by the public statements of the people to your left and your right, hon. member, is trying to decide what in fact the provincial interest is. What would be the moment when it was invoked for the first time? How would it be defined? What would the impact on the Land Commission and the land reserve be in future? What does it mean when the opposition, who is paid to oppose, tells me to invoke the provincial interest?

[ Page 7207 ]

I've taken no decision in public life more seriously than that decision. When it became clear that there were other factors involved, including the opinion of the people of Kamloops and the city of Kamloops and the chamber of commerce and people on both sides of this House saying that it was time to invoke the provincial interest, I took that responsibility. Hon. Speaker, I do not take it lightly. I take it seriously, and I'll stand here in this House and defend it today.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: I'll tell the minister what's in the provincial interest. What's in the provincial interest is a government that respects the law; what's in the provincial interest is a government that respects the independence of quasi-judicial bodies. That is what is in the provincial interest.

The Speaker: And your question, hon. member.

C. Clark: Clearly there are members of the commission who agree with me on that. Mr. Taylor said what disturbs him is that the public might get the impression that everything is hunky-dory, and that is just not the case. He called on the government to call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this absolutely disgraceful situation. Will the minister call a public inquiry and then resign and await the outcome of that public inquiry?

Hon. C. Evans: David Taylor is a good person and a good commissioner. David Taylor is saying that the light of day needs to expose how decisions are made in British Columbia. This part of the discussion I'm really proud of. For the first time in history, a decision on an agricultural land issue went not over to the other wing of this building in private but has been made with the full light of day -- 600 people went and made submissions. I took that decision to invoke the . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon. C. Evans: I took that decision and the process that led to it and went first, on January 30 of this year, to the B.C. Fruit Growers convention in the hometown of six or eight of you over there, and you watched while I explained that decision to 300 or 400 people whose livelihoods depend on it. That's the light of day.

Next we went to this party's convention, where 600 people debated it. Lastly, hon. Speaker, I went to the editorial board of the Vancouver Sun and spent 90 minutes laying it out so that everybody could read about it. There is no process more public than that . . . except the debates of that caucus -- split down the middle on the subject of the land reserve -- which nobody has ever seen or will ever hear unless one of you stands up and talks about it in here.

G. Plant: There is something very fundamental that this minister and this government don't get: no decision, no matter how difficult, is ever an excuse for breaking the rules. The rule is clear: you do not contact the commissioner to try to influence his decision. The commissioner was called at home; he was called on the weekends; he was called at night. If he is a brave man and says he wasn't influenced, that's not the issue. The issue is: why did this minister break the rules? I put that question to him directly now.

Hon. C. Evans: It's a very, very serious question. The rules say that a minister cannot attempt to affect the outcome of a quasi-judicial process by interfering. Every Minister of Agriculture is in contact with the chair of the Land Commission -- a civil servant -- some would say on a daily basis when there are issues of public policy to be determined by the two of them.

Yes, I talk to the chair, and sometimes he phones me. Between us, we worked through the last year while those people were demanding that we invoke the provincial interest, which we'd never done and had to construct an understanding of -- how to do it and how it would go, and what the effect would be on the commission, on the future of farming in B.C. and on the future of farmland. That is my job. Seeing this process through with integrity is my job. Far from apologizing for it, I believe that is the work I'm supposed to do.

Standing Order 35 Motion

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I rise this afternoon pursuant to standing order 35, as outlined in my letter to you of this date, for the purpose of debating a definite matter of urgent public importance -- namely, the northern and rural health care crisis.

The citizens of five northern and rural communities have been without hospital services for almost 13 weeks. On April 25, 1998, a concrete proposal was made, offering to immediately resume hospital services in exchange for an agreement by the provincial government to implement the results of binding arbitration by a mutually agreed-upon arbitrator. No response to the offer has come forward. It is urgent that this House give clear direction to the government in this matter. The timing of this debate is critical; an immediate solution to the restoration of health care in northern and rural communities is at hand.

I therefore move the following motion: that pursuant to standing order 35, the House do now adjourn in order to deal with a definite matter of urgent public importance -- namely, the northern and rural health care crisis and the call for binding arbitration.

[2:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: As members of the House know, the parameters under which a debate is permitted pursuant to standing order 35 are stringent. They require that it actually be a time when this matter could not have been raised in any other forum or at any other opportunity. It also requires that the consequences of the emergency are brought forward at the first available opportunity, in order to justify a debate under standing order 35.

I might say, hon. Speaker, that we have had one question on this matter. I think the member for Peace River South brought it up in question period, and that was the first and only time that I think this matter has been brought up in question period. I think there was perhaps a supplementary from the opposition party pursuant to the matter being raised by the member for Peace River South.

This matter has been ongoing since the fall of 1997, and it has been part of the public debate. It is a very serious matter. It has the full attention of the Minister of Health, and the discussions have been ongoing for almost nine months now. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition chooses this opportunity to grandstand in this fashion, but there is nothing pursuant to standing order 35 that justifies this debate.

[ Page 7208 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: In fact, if the minister reads the decision of Speaker Shantz, it's clear that if an item was discussed or was able to be discussed presently in the throne speech or the budget debate, that would indeed disqualify it. That's certainly not the case here. Nor has this item been discussed in any forum in this session other than question period -- which is not an opportunity for debate.

Secondly, the issue is the offer that's before the government. That is the urgent issue. What is emergent here is that this House must give the government and the minister clear direction to deal with that offer to solve the problem, so that people in the north can get health care working for them again. That is why this issue is so emergent and necessary for debate.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. members for their contribution to the issue. I will reserve a decision and get back to you as soon as I can.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

Motions on Notice

MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT

In this House I call resolution 43 standing on the orders of the day in the name of the Minister of Employment and Investment:

That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia establish a special committee to examine, inquire into and make recommendations respecting all aspects of the Multilateral agreement on investment.]

The Speaker: The Chair of Committees and those who are required in Committee A may now depart. When the House has settled down a wee bit, I call for the debate to begin on resolution 43.

I recognize, to begin the debate, the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker. [Applause.] I haven't said anything, and I'm already getting applause.

I rise today to speak on the multilateral agreement on investment -- on what is happening with the federal government, on what is happening in Paris and on what we feel as a government feel needs to take place over the next few weeks, months and days ahead.

The federal government is currently negotiating an agreement in Ottawa with 29 other nations of the OECD on the multilateral agreement on investment, which amounts to be a bill of rights for capital at a time when: (1) an agreement is not necessary, and (2) it is doing so without consulting Canadians.

Over the last number of years we have seen globalization like we've never seen it before. We have seen numerous trade agreements. We've seen a North American free trade agreement; we've seen ongoing agreements being negotiated on a hemispheric basis -- not just here within Canada but around the world. Many of these agreements are extremely controversial, in part because they impinge not only on national sovereignty but also on areas of provincial jurisdiction.

We had an election in this country around the North American free trade agreement a number of years ago. It was a debate that took place in every living room across the country, in every province. All political parties were involved, the public was informed and involved, and a decision was made. The ramifications of that agreement are still being examined, still being judged, but one thing became clear. Once that was over, it was: "Don't wait to see what's happening; let's move on to the next agreement." What has been happening over the last couple of years is that backroom negotiations have been taking place to try and address this MAI -- or, as it's known, a bill of rights for capital.

It would have a tremendous impact here in British Columbia on a host of areas that currently fall under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has said that nothing is happening, that they won't sign a deal unless it's the right deal. But we've seen in the past what that means -- that that's not necessarily the right deal in the eyes of the public. We saw that when the federal Liberals regained power in Ottawa. They had promised, up to the election, that they would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and the fact is, is that they didn't.

We're being told now that they won't sign an agreement that infringes on areas around health care and culture. But if we get what happened before, we'll get a deal that's bad for the province and bad for the country.

The restrictions on MAI will affect a whole host of areas, and I want to touch on some of them. It will affect job creation, tying the hands of the province to allocate resources to generate jobs in different parts of the province -- whether they be in the Kootenays or in the north -- to try and allow economic development in partnership with the province. Resource management and conservation can all be affected under the MAI, where foreign corporations have to have preferential treatment.

One of the issues that has been addressed is that they can sue for compensation for environmental rules and regulations that have been put in place to protect our environment here. But they're not the same as those in other jurisdictions -- let's say, in the United States or wherever. We can find our own measures, which we put in place here, challenged by corporations from outside of British Columbia. That's not acceptable to the people of this province.

Health care and social services. One of the key fundamental concerns of Canadians in the debate on the North American free trade agreement was that health care must not be on the table. In fact, we went so far as to add an addendum, which the United States still does not officially recognize, concerning health care in this country. Yet we're told by the federal government today that what they're willing to accept in the MAI is the wording in the North American Free Trade

[ Page 7209 ]

Agreement. Well, if it wasn't good enough for the government when NAFTA was signed, why on earth should it be good enough for the government when the MAI is signed?

This agreement has been negotiated behind closed doors. The federal government has refused to come clean with the people of this country and this province on exactly what it means. I'll give two examples. Shortly after becoming minister, I attended the interprovincial trade ministers' meeting in Ottawa where the issue of discussion was the MAI. The concerns of various provinces were addressed -- and what we needed to do. The fact is that there is no consensus amongst the provinces.

British Columbia has its concerns and is opposed to an agreement-in-principle; Prince Edward Island is opposed to the deal; Alberta is concerned around areas of resource industries, particularly oil and gas and the impact it will have on them. So it was agreed that we had to go out and hold public hearings and that the federal government needed to be communicating with the people of this country, letting them know what it's about and what their position is. To date, hon. Speaker, nothing has happened. There have been no hearings anywhere -- none whatsoever.

During the recent federal by-election in Port Moody-Coquitlam, we had the Minister of Finance come out to the riding. His statements could be duplicitous at best. He said: "What's the big deal about the MAI? We haven't discussed it at caucus yet." Well, he was probably telling the truth. Sure, they hadn't discussed it at caucus, but what he didn't say was that they had, sure as heck, discussed it at cabinet. They've definitely discussed the issue at cabinet. The cabinet gave the green light for a fast track. He didn't bother to tell that to the public and British Columbians and Canadians.

The question is: what has the federal government got to hide? Why will they not have public hearings across the country? Why will they not have public hearings here in British Columbia?

It's not just here in B.C. and Canada. It's increasingly large numbers of individuals and groups in nations throughout the OECD. Issues of culture are on the table in France. Yet when the prime motivation of the United States is to go forward and say that culture must be on the table, it's a deal-breaker for the Americans. In the United States there is increasing opposition to an agreement that few Americans know very much about.

Increasingly, they're asking the question: do we need this agreement -- which is a bill of rights for corporations -- when, in fact, of the 29 OECD countries, not one of them is a bad place to invest. Their investments are safe. A British Columbian's investments are secure in France or Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands, Norway or the United States. An American's investments are secure, as are a Belgian's, a German's or someone from France. Investments are secure here in Canada. There's stability; there isn't turmoil, as there is in the rest of the world.

As the federal ministers will tell you, that's where agreements are really needed.

We need to have a full and public set of hearings. That's why we are saying that we need an all-party committee to go out into British Columbia, to talk to British Columbians, to fully examine the impact of the MAI on the province and on areas of provincial jurisdiction and to report back to this House and make recommendations.

We have to do what the federal government should have been doing and isn't doing. We have to make sure that the public is informed and that the public is able to judge this agreement and to realize the dangers inherent in it. I ask all members of this House to support the resolution and I look forward to hearing from members.

I now to move Motion 43 standing on the order paper in my name.

G. Campbell: It's interesting to hear the minister speak about openness, about including the public, about the importance of sharing information and about the federal government's failure to meet its obligations, because that's exactly what British Columbians have been saying with regard to the way this government has managed other treaties -- the aboriginal treaties that we're working on.

I want to tell the minister that I agree that we should have open, public hearings. I agree that the federal government has failed to inform the public about all of the facts that are involved with regard to the multilateral agreement on investment. That is a failure which has allowed a number of fear-mongering statements to penetrate the public consciousness. It is something that we must, I believe, arrest. The way to do that is to have a full, open and public debate.

[2:45]

When I listen to the minister, it's surprising to me, because this agreement is not new. These negotiations are not new. In fact, I understand now that the provincial government has been kept informed with regard to these negotiations for over a year now. At no time has this government come forward to offer their understanding of what the agreement is, to include the people of British Columbia or to include the legislators of British Columbia with regard to this agreement.

First, let me start by being very clear about a couple of things. We do believe that people should be treated equally and that corporations should be treated equally. We believe that if we are going to be a small and open economy, it is critical that we encourage outside investment. The Premier has just been down to Hollywood, encouraging outside investment. The Premier is saying that he wants to encourage corporations in this province to invest in this province.

If we're going to be a small and an open economy in this province, we are going to have to make sure that people are treated equally. But let me be very clear about this: if this agreement would in any way jeopardize our health care, our social services, our cultural industries, we would be opposed to it. If this agreement in any way abrogates the rights of the provincial government and the authorities of the provincial government to make decisions, we would be opposed to it. I think the critical matter here is to bring these issues forward so that we can indeed discover what is truly involved with regard to this agreement.

One of the things that I think is implied in the minister's motion is that people in British Columbia want to have a sense of certainty. They want to have a sense of equality with regard to the signing of any treaty, whether it's the multilateral agreement on investment or treaties with our aboriginal communities across this province. I agree with that. I think we do need certainty, and I think this government could show real leadership to the federal government if, when they were dealing with treaties, they were in fact open, accountable and encouraging people across the province to come together and understand the public policy issues at stake.

Let's remember that investment is a very critical part of our economy, not just in British Columbia but in Canada. It has been suggested that every $1 billion of foreign investment in this country generates approximately 45,000 jobs for Canadians. That obviously would have the same kind of impact on the British Columbia economy. We want to be sure that investment works for the public good, and we can be. Currently,

[ Page 7210 ]

Canadian companies invest about $194 billion around the world. Some of those companies are British Columbia companies. MacMillan Bloedel, Placer Dome and Finning are major international investors located here in British Columbia. We expect them to be treated equally when they invest elsewhere, just as outside investors would expect to be treated equally when they invest in our province or in our country.

One of the critical messages that we ourselves have to reflect on here in this Legislature is: why is there a need for a special committee? Every year in the House we appoint select standing committees made up of members of the Legislature to deal with these issues -- not at the last minute, as we're having to deal with this today; not at the time when the federal government is dealing with this issue at the OECD in Paris. I understand from their comments that this has now been put very far onto the backburner; I understand there is now no deadline for an agreement.

There is, I think, some question as to whether or not the OECD will even carry on with that in the longer term. I think it's a little late for the government to be showing up, but given that it has and given that it has raised these concerns, and given that we may believe that these concerns are legitimate, it seems to me that the true way that we should be dealing with this is through our select standing committees.

We have a Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology. There's really nothing more important to our economic development than investment in the province of British Columbia. There's really nothing more important that a committee on economic development, science, labour, training and technology could deal with.

We want to be known as a jurisdiction that encourages investment; we want to be known as a jurisdiction that treats all investors equally and aboveboard; we want to be known as a jurisdiction that encourages business activity, so we have more jobs in the province. All of those things are critical. It seems to me that the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology is a far more appropriate vehicle for us to move forward with.

Let me reiterate. We agree with the idea of open, accountable, public debate and discussion. We would like to see that take place with regard to MAI as well as with regard to other treaties that this province is involved with. We agree with the issue that says we will protect B.C.'s right to make B.C.'s decisions. We agree with the issue that says that if there is any threat to our health care, education or cultural industries, the multilateral agreement on investment should not go forward and should not be supported by Canada.

But we believe that the way for us to move forward and include the Legislature in an appropriate manner would be to have the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology host these hearings.

Therefore I'm going to move that the motion of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to establish a special committee be amended to read: "That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia direct the Select Standing Committee on Economic Development, Science, Labour, Training and Technology to examine, inquire into and make recommendations respecting all aspects of the multilateral agreement on investment."

The Speaker: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rising on a point of order?

G. Wilson: I would take guidance from the Chair as to which motion we're debating and which motion we've just amended. My understanding is that we were debating Motion 43. The substance of the amendment I think speaks to Motion 42. If you could please direct us as to which motion we're amending and which we're debating, I'd appreciate it.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps just to clarify for the member, at the bottom of Motion 43, the last paragraph states: "That the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia establish a special committee to examine, inquire into . . . . " The amendment refers to that paragraph and replaces "special committee" with the standing committee that would normally deal with these matters as a matter of course.

The Speaker: The member is satisfied with that response? Motion 43 has the proposed amendment attached to it now. The debate continues, and I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

On the amendment.

T. Nebbeling: First of all, before I really get to the brunt of the amendment, I'd like to express my surprise at seeing this particular motion come to the House today, the 27th of April. We are, of course, aware of the fact that today they also had a meeting in Paris, where the 29 nations that make up the OECD got together to deal with the MAI.

The reason that I'm really surprised to see this motion is that if the minister had been willing or able to learn from many of the discussions that have been going on in the province and in the country on the whole issue of the multilateral agreement on investment, the minister would have known that all parties have very clearly indicated for the last couple of months that today there would be no signing of any agreement.

To a large extent, the reason that there is no signing of any agreement contemplated today -- and no signing has been done today -- is because of what Canada has put down during the participation in the discussions on the elements that will ultimately make up the multilateral agreement on investment. In a sense, I feel that the minister is fishing behind the net in coming forward with motions that relate to issues that, in fairness, are not happening at all. I want to express that surprise to start off.

One of the points that the minister raised is that the MAI has so far been discussed, if it has been discussed, behind closed doors. He has very much expressed his dislike for that process. His lack of knowledge of what MAI really stands for is clearly reflected by not having listened to the debates that have been going on. The minister also noted earlier, in his introduction of his motion, that he attended a meeting in February with the other ministers of employment and investment in Ottawa. It was February 19, I believe. It should be

[ Page 7211 ]

telling to see a statement by Mr. Hancock, from Alberta, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs, who attended one of these meetings.

The Speaker: This debate is on the amendment about whether the committee should be made up one way or the other way, as opposed to the substantive issue of the MAI itself. I encourage you to debate that. If you choose not to, that's okay too, because you'll get to speak again when the main motion is on the floor.

T. Nebbeling: Okay, Madam Speaker. I felt that . . . .

The Speaker: On the point about which committee would be better.

T. Nebbeling: That's what I'm talking about. I was getting to that particular point by illustrating that a committee is indeed necessary. A committee is necessary because so far the messages that this government should have used to establish a position on the MAI have clearly not been heard.

I will second the motion, as presented by the leader of my party, to establish a committee, not by creating a new body but by using the existing committee made up of all parties of this House. I believe it is capable of getting out the message that the minister intends to spread through the committee forum.

[3:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 32

Sanders

Gingell

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Reid

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Reitsma

J. Wilson

McKinnon

Krueger

Masi

Dalton

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Hansen

Stephens

Coleman

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

Weisbeck

NAYS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Janssen

Giesbrecht

Doyle

Kasper

Bowbrick

Sawicki

Smallwood

Sihota

Hartley

Waddell

Farnworth

Ramsey

Lovick

MacPhail

Dosanjh

Miller

Petter

Priddy

G. Wilson

The Speaker: On the main motion, Motion 43, I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who might wish to wait just a moment before he begins, while members find their way to their various meetings.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to ask leave of the House, if I may, to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I thank my colleagues in the House. It's with real pleasure that I introduce two constituents of mine who are also friends and who are very active in the Council of Canadians. In fact, Bill Abram is the president of the Council of Canadians in the Cowichan Valley. They're here, of course, to listen to this debate today; it's an issue that they, amongst many others, are very concerned about. I ask my colleagues in the House to make them very welcome.

T. Nebbeling: Now I'd like to speak on the main Motion 43 as presented by the Minister of Employment and Investment.

MAI has been on the front of many people's minds for quite a long time now, and I was really surprised to hear the minister say that as minister, he had very little knowledge about what MAI really was all about and that with his ignorance of the MAI bill and its intent, he also felt that the rest of the province had been kept in the dark about the details. It surprises me. The press has spent a considerable amount of time looking at the integrated parts of what was being discussed by the 29 nations making up the OECD.

One thing that has disturbed me more than anything else over the last four or five months is the fact that whenever the government has spoken on MAI, they never seem to have really spoken on the . . . .

The federal government has shared information with the provincial government, but they seem to have been set on a track of speaking only the viewpoints of a number of people representing a number of organizations. These are the same people who, at the time that the North America Free Trade Agreement -- the NAFTA deal -- was being discussed, opposed it with almost the same types of arguments that we now have heard for the last four or five months when we talk about MAI. It is really disturbing, because ultimately the government, through its message, should foremost give the facts to the people.

That is so fundamental. They should not just take a bunch of reasons to oppose MAI without looking at whether there is really validity, really truth to these arguments.

During his introduction today, when the minister speaks about the fact that we have to go on the road and get the truth to the people of this province as to how the multilateral agreement on investment will have an impact on their lives, I think it is going to be extremely important for me to be constantly monitoring how the government will portray that message. Are they going to speak on the reservations that the Canadian government has made in detail? Or are they going to speak on how the Institute for Policy Alternatives sees how MAI will materialize and how it will impact the lives of British Columbians?

Again today, the minister used some arguments, some illustrations and some examples to show why he believes it so important that we go out and let the people know what it is all about. There is nothing wrong with giving the MAI a broad exposure. I have always felt that as government we too often fail to present details of issues that are of interest as a whole to people living in this province. The meagreness, so to speak, of what we provide the people of this province in general when it comes to background on bills and issues that we are discussing . . . . So I am a strong supporter of the idea that we go out

[ Page 7212 ]

into the province and share with the people all or many of the details that MAI entails and how it will impact their lives.

But like I said before, I'm also going to be very cognizant of the fact that these arguments, which will be shared by this government with the people of this province, are going to be based on the true facts. When I hear the minister talk today about the threat to the provincial jurisdiction, and when we look at all the reservations with it that the federal government has made in discussing this at the OECD, I cannot see where the government is so fundamentally set in believing that the provincial jurisdiction is undermined.

Many scholars, many experts, have looked at this whole issue, and they've said no, it is not true. I cannot see how this government, with the little knowledge they claim to have on the whole MAI -- they claim it has been discussed behind closed doors by the federal government -- can say that when at the same time the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs in Alberta spoke at a meeting that this minister attended, about the fact that:

"Alberta has taken a great interest in the negotiations leading to the multilateral agreement on investment, since they were launched by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 1995. From the outset Alberta has pressed for provincial participation with the federal government, because of the potential effect on the area of provincial jurisdiction. Alberta wanted to make sure that provincial interests were accurately and fully reflected in the Canadian position in the negotiations, and we have been very active with the federal negotiator, to that end, over the last two years."

How the minister can stand up today, as he has done for the last couple of months, and try to tell us, the public of British Columbia, that he has been in the dark when it comes to the multilateral agreement on investment . . . . Either the minister hasn't done his homework or the minister hasn't understood it.

Or the minister had no interest in the issue until the time came that the Premier decided -- let's be kind -- to stop focusing on all the things that are truly going wrong in this province, when it comes to the economy, by bringing in an issue with some scaremongering and thereby distracting people from really looking at the issues they should be looking at.

Suddenly, the interest and the lack of knowledge of the minister is only, in my opinion, explainable by seeing this as an attempt by this government to stop people from focusing on the things that people in this province want to focus on, which is definitely jobs, the economy and investment.

[3:15]

One argument made by the minister on other occasions is that the job creation opportunities in this province are at risk because of MAI. When I look at the document that was prepared by the Institute for Policy Alternatives, they talked about that very much about. The document basically talks about the fact that the British Columbia government may not be able to be involved in creating jobs under formulas such as the jobs and timber accord and that the fundamental belief of this government -- that government should be creating jobs, not free enterprise -- would be undermined.

For that reason, there is skepticism, and there is concern expressed by the minister about not being able to create jobs.

What other trade agreements have done -- like NAFTA or any other of the trade agreements Canada has been involved with -- is create more jobs. It's not only that overseas investors can come to this province or to Canada and invest, but Canadians can go abroad and invest and work on fairly reasonable bases, which in certain countries might not be there today. Canada today has invested $170 billion abroad.

What this agreement is potentially doing -- I have not been sold on it completely, but the potential is there -- is, indeed, making sure that a Canadian company, when working abroad, has the full protection of the law and cannot be manipulated. That is potentially a good thing, but we need the answers for it. For the NDP government to say today that it will kill job opportunities is fundamentally wrong.

Health care was mentioned again today by the minister. It should be noted that the federal minister of economic development has repeatedly stated and given in writing an unconditional commitment that there will be in no way, shape or form the potential for an attack -- be it on health care, be it on our social services. For the government here in British Columbia to stand up and try to fearmonger and try to get people all worked up over health care being under attack . . . . It is fundamentally not true.

One of the main reasons that today in the OECD's meeting no signatures were put on a piece of paper that would have made the MAI a reality is that Canada has introduced a large number of reservations to protect the well-being of not only this country but also this province. As long as these reservations are not entrenched, I'm glad Canada will not sign. Why does the government not give that message to the public of British Columbia? I think it would be much more constructive. It would be more helpful, and it would certainly be more honest.

Another element of the minister's motion is the -- what I find surprising -- request to ask the federal government to exclude itself from any further deliberation on the MAI. Now, I don't know if the minister has really thought this one through. First of all, the question was asked last year: should Canada participate in debating the MAI? And last year the minister then responsible for employment and investment categorically stated here in the House that yes, we should be at the table. He said there were obvious reasons why that should be the case.

To see the new minister today with a total reversal of that position is kind of surprising, and I don't think it has been thought through very well. This minister is basically saying that of the 29 countries that make up the OECD, we are the only country that is going to stand aside; we're not going to participate. We are going to let the other 28 countries make the decisions and set rules and regulations that if one day we want to be part of, we had no input into.

I'd like to compare it a little bit to what happened in Europe over the last couple of years. You are well aware that Europe, with its Common Market -- what is now called the EEC, the European Economic Community . . . . When this started about 20 years ago with the Benelux, which was three countries that started a trade pact -- Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg . . . . At that time, the trade pact was based on natural resources; other countries were asked to join, and there was very little interest. The Benelux was basically on its own for a couple of years.

Then other countries began to realize that there was something good happening there, and a number of other countries joined, and it became the European Common Market. There were nine countries in total making up the European Common Market, and these nine countries started to talk amongst themselves about free trade, currency issues and employment issues..

Then there were a number of other European countries that said: "No. We don't really want to belong to this. This is not going anywhere." One of the countries that held out the longest was Sweden. So the European Common Market became the EEC, the European Economic Community. Suddenly the countries that didn't think they wanted to be part of the programs that were discussed for the EEC started to realize that they were standing on the outside, that a fair

[ Page 7213 ]

amount of the benefits that were created by this European community were not available to them and in fact worked against them.

So in the last couple of years we have seen countries like Denmark and Sweden suddenly knocking on the door and saying: "Hey, we want to get in." And guess what: they are in. But they are in with the conditions that were set by the original nine countries. The Swedes didn't like it. They had a referendum on it and said: "We don't like this part of the agreement, and we don't like that part of the agreement, but for economic reasons, we can't stay on the outside any longer." Sweden is now part of the European Community. There are elements in the rules and the regulations that they really don't like, but they have to live with it.

I'd like to conclude by also making an amendment to the minister's motion. The amendment reads as follows:

With that motion, I complete my statement.

On the amendment.

C. Hansen: I am on the list to speak later on the main motion, and I wish to reserve that right to speak later.

The Speaker: You would do that anyway. We deal with one piece of business, and then it is all wide open again for the next order of business. At this point, it's specifically to the amendment.

C. Hansen: I do have some comments specifically relating to this amendment that I do want to put on the record at this time. I certainly want to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my colleague. On May 23 last year a resolution was put before this House on this very subject by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I spoke to that motion at that time and congratulated the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for bringing the subject of the MAI forward to this House. It was really the first time that anyone had raised it in this chamber. At that time we acknowledged that a lot of questions were brought forward.

But I did take exception to that motion that was put forward last year, because it too called for the federal government to withdraw from the negotiating table. I feel very strongly that that would be the wrong thing for government to do. Certainly we have some very profound questions about the MAI, which I will address when I speak to the main motion, but nothing is accomplished if we simply remove ourselves from the negotiating table. There are many questions that need to be asked.

There are many areas in the MAI that Canada has a very strong interest in -- a unique interest probably unlike the other 28 countries that are at the negotiating table. For us to withdraw from that negotiation would be the wrong thing to do. It would be totally counterproductive to what we're trying to achieve, which is the protection of Canadian and British Columbian interests when it comes to the negotiation of an international treaty of this nature.

At that time last May, I moved an amendment that basically said that this government, this Legislature, should urge the federal government not to sign an agreement until such time as there were proper consultations, rather than saying that we should withdraw from negotiations. And the debate on that motion took us up to adjournment on May 23, 1997.

We had an opportunity to debate this issue fully last year, and this government chose not to call that resolution for debate again in this chamber during that last session of the Legislature. That was a mistake, because now almost a year has passed, and a lot more questions have been asked, and there are very few answers coming from the federal government.

Last year, after that motion was adjourned by my colleague from Chilliwack, this government chose never to call that motion again for debate during that last session.

We came up to June 9, the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. The current minister was on the government back bench at that time, but the current Minister of Energy and Mines was the Minister of Employment and Investment then. I asked some very specific questions about the MAI and the negotiations and the importance of us being at the negotiating table. Let me just read back into the record what was said during those estimates debates. I asked the Minister of Employment and Investment if he felt that there was an opportunity to influence the negotiations that were taking place.

If we found issues that were not in British Columbia's best interest, was there an opportunity for us to have an impact on those negotiations at the negotiating table? The Minister of Employment and Investment at the time answered: "I do believe it is possible internally in Canada to have some influence on the position taken by our federal government while they're at the table. Whether or not . . . our federal government has the ability to have some influence . . . internationally . . . . It's a significant player. I'm sure its voice would be heard."

So I came back and asked the minister a very specific question: was the minister of the opinion that it is better for Canada to be at that negotiating table or to withdraw from that negotiating table? I don't think I could have put the question more succinctly, hon. Speaker. The minister's response was: "I believe that they should stay at the table . . . if only to understand what's happening there, what's being proposed" -- and to protect our interest.

[3:30]

That's what my colleague's amendment is all about. It's to ensure that Canadian negotiators are at the table to protect the Canadian interest and the interest of British Columbians. I

[ Page 7214 ]

have no doubt that when we vote on my colleague's amendment, the current Minister of Energy and Mines -- the former Minister of Employment and Investment -- will support this amendment, because he could not have made it more clear last year in the estimates debate in the House that he fully believes and supports that Canada should be at the negotiating table. Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I will reserve the rest of my comments for the main motion.

The Speaker: That's fine, hon. member. Any further debate on the amendment? I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

K. Krueger: I too rise to support the amendment. I very much believe -- and I think most British Columbians do -- that anything worth doing is worth doing right. In particular, when our country, ergo our province, is engaged in a negotiation of this significance, it's important to remain represented at the table. Canada is an international player in virtually every area of concern to people around the world, and this is an area of huge concern. Canada has stood for human rights, protection of the downtrodden and improvement in the status of underprivileged people around the world. How are we served by withdrawing from the table when something this important is being discussed?

It only makes sense to have the benefit of public consultation -- real public consultation. It equips the country and certainly the province with a real snapshot of public opinion and Canadians' concerns, and I've heard many. Canadians are tremendously concerned about the multilateral agreement on investment, and I want to see those concerns voiced to the negotiators who represent Canadians and Canada at this table. That won't happen if the negotiators have withdrawn. There would be no point.

I wonder why the government has called this debate today. As my colleagues have mentioned, there has been plenty of opportunity over the last months, and we've tried to have this debate before. So what's the reason for calling the debate today? Could it be crude political opportunism -- a government that feels so much on the ropes that it's trying to distract public attention from the sorrowful state of British Columbia's economy? Is there a chance that the government is so ashamed of itself and its cabinet ministers' behaviour . . . ?

The Speaker: Hon. member, on the amendment, please.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am speaking to the amendment. I'm speaking to the question of why British Columbia would urge Canada to withdraw from the negotiating table on the multilateral agreement on investment, which is the substance of my colleague's amendment, of course. He and I don't believe, and the official opposition does not accept, that Canada should withdraw from those negotiations -- not at all.

We say we should empower our negotiators with information from the public -- Canadians' concerns -- and ensure that all of Canada's interests are adequately represented at that table, not walk away from it. There are indications that there is not going to be any movement on the MAI in the negotiations in Paris, so there is no need to take any such precipitous or foolish action, in my view. I think this is simply cynical political timing, trying to withdraw from the process in order to distract British Columbians from the real issues in B.C. right now.

Now, we agree with the government that these negotiations should not be going on in secret, just as we feel that many similar negotiations in other areas and on other issues should not be going on in secret around British Columbia. In particular, our leader raised the example of the aboriginal treaty negotiations. There should be much more public consultation, many more open processes involving British Columbians and Canadians. British Columbia should not do so much in secret. Closed-door meetings and backroom deals are not the way to conduct business for British Columbians or for Canadians.

We have an intelligent and informed electorate who want to be heard, who want to be represented at tables such as this one.

So we don't go for sneaky backroom deals, not at the MAI table. Frankly, I don't think that's what our federal government is going to allow to happen. We certainly don't accept them here in British Columbia, either, on the many issues where those processes are going ahead in secret. It only leads to public cynicism and to a downgrading of public confidence in the government and in the role that we as representatives play for British Columbians and for Canadians.

The issue of the credibility of the current government of British Columbia also looms very large on this issue. It is, after all, a negotiation on an international agreement on investment. Who is qualified to speak on investment in Canada? I think that more and more, as we close this millennium, people look to results and measure governments, measure leadership, measure managers, measure everyone who presumes to make decisions on behalf of other people by their results. Who has the results in Canada? Who would British Columbians feel are best equipped to speak for them?

A survey was published today, Madam Speaker. It was a survey of money managers, who are responsible for $140 billion in investment and assets. It says the results show that Canadian money managers feel that British Columbia and Quebec have, by far, the most negative business climates in Canada. In fact, only 3 percent said British Columbia has a positive climate for business, while 73 percent said that about Alberta and 81 percent about Ontario.

So I don't think British Columbia has much credibility when it comes to speaking about issues concerning investment, with this government at the helm. This is the government that took us from first to worst in terms of economic performance in Canada -- a shameful record. This is the government that stood in the path of an agreement on interprovincial trade, again a tremendously negative performance with regard to investment in British Columbia.

This is the government which, faced with the Delgamuukw decision -- one of the most important decisions ever rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada -- has chosen not to act in a decisive way, not to take a public and strong position on that decision, which is, again, tremendously important to investment in British Columbia.

Rather, it appoints the former Speaker as both Labour minister and Aboriginal Affairs minister and allows him to say that the highest priority of this government and therefore of British Columbia is to introduce changes to the Labour Code of all things -- another move that will be tremendously negative to investment in British Columbia. So this government doesn't speak with authority. It's blown its . . . .

The Speaker: On the amendment, hon. member.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, I seek to make it clear why, in my opinion and the opinion of my colleagues and constituents, it's not in order for the present government, the NDP government of the province of British

[ Page 7215 ]

The moves this government has made with regard to investment, particularly the Labour Code amendments if they're brought in, are further major nails in the coffin of British Columbia's economy. I don't think that we should put our heads up in this way on this issue and make such a foolish admonition to the senior level of government with credibility lacking the way it is in British Columbia. As long as we're at the table, we can prevent -- or at least try to -- those things we do not agree with.

If we lose our voice, if we foolishly throw away our opportunity to speak, we have no further control over what goes on at that table -- and, of course, trade is tremendously important to Canada and to British Columbia. So why would we do that? I wonder if this current Minister of Employment and Investment was even aware when he drafted this amendment that he was flatly contradicting the previous Minister of Employment and Investment -- so lately departed from our midst in that role -- when he said on June 9, 1997, that he believed they should stay at the table. We believe, too, that the negotiators for Canada should stay at the table, and that's exactly what my colleague's amendment says.

This motion, in my mind, is typical of this government's flamboyant and unproductive Hollywood style of attempting to provide leadership for the province of B.C. It reminds me of the phony fish war, of the ill-advised backing of the Alaska ferry blockade, of the jobs and timber accord -- there was no such thing as an accord, in that nothing was on paper; it was all smoke and mirrors -- and of the recent interceding in the teachers' negotiations, which is an assault on collective bargaining and, again, destructive to labour peace and to the economy of British Columbia.

We're not happy with the process that has gone on with the multilateral agreement on investment thus far. We believe the public should have been informed all along. The public should have had the opportunity to speak, but that can still happen. I don't understand why this government would vote against our leader's amendment to consult the people of British Columbia through the existing processes of the Legislature and would rather try and create another committee unnecessarily, except that it's just one more attempt to seize the podium to try and make a grand statement. It's contrary to the best interests of Canadians and British Columbians.

If it comes down to a question of credibility between the federal government and this NDP provincial government, then the Premier loses hands down. Canada created 363,000 new full-time jobs in 1997; British Columbia went backwards. We're back in the dust with Prince Edward Island. We have no right to lecture the federal government on withdrawing from negotiations on investment of all things.

The Premier is a tiny figure on these issues, compared to the people he's presuming to admonish in Ottawa, with 30 years of integrity versus a history in the last seven years in British Columbia of the destruction of investment and of the economy, and a government here that indulges in wild exaggeration on its goals versus a federal government that continually understates its goals and has delivered a balanced budget and begun to get rid of the national debt. Now, that is something that encourages investment and, once again, it is an indication of where the credibility lies in this debate.

B.C. would look extremely foolish putting this position forward, and that is contrary to our best interests. The international investment community does not suffer fools. This would just be another row of bricks on the big wall that this government has built around British Columbia, keeping out investment, and it's tremendously ill-advised.

Another Biblical parallel. The Lord said to get the beam out of one's own eye before one tries to deal with a sliver in someone else's. Let's not presume to admonish the people who have established credibility when British Columbia in its current administration has none. Trade is essential to British Columbia and Canada and to investment. Our lack of credibility in the eyes of investors is the reason that British Columbia is hurting so terribly economically.

We should not run away from these negotiations. We should stay and negotiate and represent the people of British Columbia and Canada, armed with public opinion that we can obtain only through legitimate consultation processes, which are very different from what we've seen in the various areas where they've been tried by this government over recent years. People continually tell me, when they've been involved in those consultative processes, that they have a strong sense that the government always knew what it was going to do.

It only went through the motions, the pretence, of having a consultative process in order to try and give itself some legitimacy when it does the arbitrary thing that it always wanted to do. Indeed, often it announces its decision before the consultation is actually even complete. That's happened in my own constituency.

[3:45]

[ Page 7216 ]

On that ground alone, I am proud that our government has taken that strong stand, and I challenge the members of the Liberal opposition to get off the fence and get on the record and stop the filibuster.

The amendment is simply saying that if we were to withdraw . . . . I've heard commentary here that somehow Canadians would no longer be informed about what's going on at the table. This agreement has been negotiated since May of 1995. This is not new; this is long-term. If the government were to suspend its participation in the MAI negotiation, it would not stop the continued movement toward what is becoming a greater degree of open access by corporate entry into various countries -- OECD countries in this case. Furthermore, it would not in any way inhibit the ability for Canadian business to continue to participate in those discussions. So the amendment to the motion is specious.

It seems to me that to allow this motion to stand as it is requires that the federal government -- and it's noteworthy that they have a constitutional obligation to this province to do so -- go out and actually consult with Canadians and get a mandate to decide whether or not Canada wishes to participate in the OECD agreements. That's what it says. All those who would argue that by saying that Canada should suspend its participation somehow makes Canadians look foolish . . . . I think they look a little foolish, to be honest, because they clearly don't understand what's going on in these negotiations.

I think it is incumbent upon the federal government to undertake to consult broadly, by region . . . .

I participated in the Ottawa presentations. I flew to Ottawa. I made a representation back in November of last year with respect to the MAI. I'll tell you, it's a very onerous, expensive and difficult thing to have to go to the capital, as a western Canadian, a British Columbian, to make representation to a committee that only wanted to hear from those they selected. That's what they called broad consultation.

If the amendment were to pass, what it would essentially say is: "It's business as usual, folks in Ottawa." As members of the B.C. Liberal Party and cousins to the federal Liberal Party, maybe that's what they want to do. Certainly those . . . .

Interjections.

G. Wilson: I think the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has strong Liberal credentials, and I admire him for them. I freely admit mine. I have very strong Liberal credentials. I've been a small-l liberal all my life. I'll tell you that I'm ashamed, frankly, at the degree to which the federal Liberal government seems to hold in contempt Canadians' rights to have an understanding and knowledge of what their government is doing on their behalf, and therefore I would not support this amendment.

I think the people of Canada have to send a strong message to the federal government that if they are going to continue to participate with respect to the consultation process of OECD negotiations -- not government negotiations -- then they better talk to Canadians first and mandate themselves with the views and concerns of the people they purport to represent. That is why I would not support the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hadn't intended to get up on the amendment, but I heard the comments by the member for Surrey-Whalley and the comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I think they missed the point. Perhaps we may disagree. I think we probably agree on what the federal government should be doing, for the most part. I think where we disagree is on whether or not we feel that the government absenting itself, as the original government motion read, would be putting the interests of British Columbia and Canadians forward or backward. That's where we disagree.

I agree with almost everything the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast said -- almost everything. I agree with him that the federal government absenting itself or their representatives from the negotiations of the OECD would not stop the negotiations. That's what he said, and I agree with him on that. I also agree with him that it would not stop progress toward the deal. In fact, I would use those very arguments that the member made to argue that Canada should stay there at the negotiating table. We should be there.

An Hon. Member: It's not the government.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says that it's not the government. I understand that it's not the government; it is the representatives.

Canada carries immense weight around the world on international issues. Canada is a widely respected country. Many people around this globe look to Canada for direction on a whole range of issues, and that's why it's important that we be at the table. That's why it's important that Canadian delegates be there talking about this issue.

Let's look at what was just in the paper today and in the last week. As the MAI has sort of gone off the rails, as the path toward the ratification of this agreement has hit turbulence, it's been France and Canada primarily that have been raising concerns about culture and about the other issues.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says it's been the people of Canada. It's also been . . . . I've seen quotes on this from politicians of all parties at the federal level that would indicate the willingness, the desire and, in fact, the need to protect Canadian culture, Canadian content, etc. If Canada absents itself from the whole debate around MAI and the whole discussion around it, that considerable voice that stood with France on a whole bunch of these concerns raised by the members opposite and the member to my left would have been gone. France would have stood alone.

[ Page 7217 ]

I understand the concern from the member for Surrey-Whalley -- and I assume she's speaking for most of her caucus -- and I understand the comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. But on international negotiations, it's always better to be inside the tent that outside the tent. Outside the tent you can't do a darn thing; inside the tent you can throw stumbling blocks up. You can say no. You can use the levers that you have, and Canada has immense levers internationally.

We in this House all agree that the federal government should be out there talking to people. They should be going out of their way to consult Canadians right across this country about this issue, and they should be coming to us. As the member said, we shouldn't all have to fly to Ottawa to do it. We all agree on that. What this amendment to the motion does is say it's smarter for Canada to be there, raising these concerns, talking about these concerns, protecting Canadian culture, protecting health care, protecting social services, protecting education -- the very things that the members are worried about.

It's better for Canada to be there, wielding our considerable power and influence internationally.

Now, that's where we disagree, apparently. We all agree on the goal; we disagree on what the impact would be. I believe that being there is better and that it's smarter. It allows you to be inside, and I think the facts of the last month or two have proven that case. I believe firmly that France wouldn't have had nearly the clout it had in dealing with this issue if Canada hadn't stood with it.

I think the amendment to the motion is a wise one. It's a rational one; it's a reasoned one and will go a long way to ensuring that the voices of Canadians -- once the federal government comes and talks to us -- are represented at the table. If we're not there, our voices are mute. We present to the committee. We present to the federal government, and they go back to Ottawa and write a report. They sit on it, and it goes nowhere.

If you're there participating in the discussions and the negotiations, you can take the voice of Canadians and say: "Look. This is what our people are thinking. This is what our people are saying." It is clearly to the advantage of Canadians to have our voices heard not just by the people in Ottawa but by the people in Paris as well. That's why this amendment to the motion is so critical.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I appreciate the opportunity to get into this debate on the amendment, if I may. I hadn't actually planned to insert myself in the debate at this point, but I think it is crucial that we speak to this amendment. It would be my hope that the Legislature defeats the amendment. I don't in any way underestimate the intent of the opposition, nor do I criticize the opposition for this amendment, but I do want to bring to the attention of the Legislature why it is so important that the government stop the meetings on the multilateral agreement on investment -- completely stop the negotiations until the Canadian public has had an opportunity . . . .

I want to speak to it in the context of an issue that's very close to my heart and our government's heart. That's the issue of public health as it's affected by tobacco. Someone might say: "Well, what does that have to do with the MAI, and why is it in any way affected by the MAI?" Well, it is simply to say that the consequences of the multilateral agreement on investment hurt public health. It would effectively stop governments from banning tobacco advertising or from introducing plain packaging of cigarettes or, in effect, not even allow our government to do what we plan on doing, which is to label the ingredient content of tobacco.

Under the MAI, brand names and trademarks are considered intellectual property, one of many kinds of investments the MAI is designed to protect. The MAI gives corporations a money-back guarantee on investments like trademarks. Before a government takes any measures which expropriate the use of a trademark or a cigarette brand name, for instance, it has to be prepared to show that the proposed measure is in the public interest, show that the proposed measure is not discriminatory and show that the proposed measure is lawful.

I know that there are those that would doubt this and think that we're raising this debate to an hysterical level. This is the position of the World Health Organization; this is not a matter that our government has examined and brought for our own benefit. The World Health Organization met with me recently and is very concerned about the consequences of the MAI on anybody's ability to bring about good public health law in the area of tobacco use.

The MAI would consider that banning tobacco brand names from race cars is an expropriation of trademark rights. Any government wanting to protect kids from tobacco company marketing through race cars would have to pay the cigarette companies for the lost use of their trademarks. Trademarks like Rothmans, Benson and Hedges, Marlboro and Camel are amongst those most valuable in the world. The compensation required would be in the tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of dollars. Plain packaging of cigarettes would also be an expropriation of cigarette company trademark rights.

The Speaker: Hon. Minister, I'm having a little trouble connecting this to the amendment. I'd appreciate it if you could stick to the amendment.

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm suggesting, hon. Speaker, that the reason why the discussion should not go ahead until the public has had the full view of this is that the consequences of proceeding and agreeing to such an item would cost not tens but hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayer. That's why it's important that the hearing be set aside until such public information has been absorbed.

I am close to my conclusion. My position here is simply this: the public needs to know about the consequences of this deal, these privately held discussions. They need to know the consequences at this level. I don't believe I've heard a public discussion around the consequences from a public health

[ Page 7218 ]

point of view, and I'm suggesting that no discussions continue, that the government suspend its participation until public information has been made available.

I just want to conclude by saying that one sensible proposal to reduce the appeal of cigarettes is to put them in ordinary packages. This is not a revolutionary concept; many governments are talking about plain packaging for cigarettes so they don't have any image or brand name associated with them. In 1994 our federal government was actively considering plain packaging of cigarettes, and the studies showed that they would almost certainly lead to fewer kids smoking. The tobacco industry -- this is a real case -- used the NAFTA to fight back.

Carla Hills, the former U.S. trade negotiator, was brought into a House of Commons committee by the tobacco industry to threaten trade action if plain packaging proceeded. The North American Free Trade Agreement contains investment protection provisions almost identical to those proposed under the multilateral agreement on investment. So after the government looked at the compensation it would have had to pay . . . .

T. Nebbeling: Point of order.

The Speaker: Hon. minister, would you take your seat, please. On what point of order, member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi?

T. Nebbeling: I think I've been very lenient listening to arguments that have nothing to do with the amendment to the motion. I really feel that the Chair should stop this now. It is just another example of how misinformation enters the public. The arguments made by the minister as far as health and tobacco are not as she presented them in her little submission. Nevertheless, I think she should stick to the amendment.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his point, and I'm sure the minister, in her conclusions, will take that into account.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm actually dismayed about the position of the opposition parties. This is not a partisan issue that I'm talking about here. This is a public health issue, and it's very important that we have these discussions. We are talking about this in the context of the effect it will have on the Canadian public and whether the government should continue to be involved in discussions before the public knows the consequences. I am actually truly dismayed that anyone would suggest that this isn't an important issue or that it be characterized as misinformation. It is quite amazing that it is being characterized as misinformation.

Just to conclude on that matter, after the government looked into a real-life example that's identical -- the compensation issues under NAFTA are identical to the MAI; it would have had to pay cigarette companies for plain packaging -- they ditched the proposal. So here is a real-life example of what the consequences could be, not only from a taxpayer point of view, but also from a public health point of view.

I would sincerely urge all of us who are concerned, who are perhaps having trouble absorbing the full consequences of the multilateral agreement on investment, to at least turn our minds to what we need to do to protect the public health -- of our kids particularly, who are the target of the tobacco industry. Let's ask the government to withhold any discussions and conduct our public hearings. British Columbia will be there in full force.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 33

Sanders

Gingell

C. Clark

Campbell

Farrell-Collins

de Jong

Plant

Reid

Coell

Chong

Whittred

Jarvis

Anderson

Nettleton

Penner

Weisgerber

Reitsma

J. Wilson

McKinnon

Krueger

Masi

Dalton

Barisoff

van Dongen

Symons

Thorpe

Hansen

Stephens

Coleman

Weisbeck

Hawkins

Hogg

Nebbeling

NAYS -- 37

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

Kwan

Hammell

Boone

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Goodacre

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Cashore

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Sihota

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Janssen

G. Wilson

On the main motion.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak to the main motion. Where possible, I'm going to try to limit my remarks to the facts of the matter, and I hope that I have the facts correct. Without a doubt, there is an enormous amount of misinformation among the general public about what the MAI is all about and what its impact is likely to be.

Because it is an agreement being negotiated by the OECD and because it's been underway since May of 1995, with the original target date of May 1997, a tremendous amount of distrust currently resides in many people in Canada who have been following this debate, at least in the last number of months. They were unaware that their government was, at least peripherally, participating by way of consultation with negotiations that involved a number of key Canadians with respect to the proposition of the MAI.

[4:15]

For those who may be new to the MAI, there have been some articles in the paper and some television shows on it, and there have been a number of different rallies and forums and speeches. I've been all over the province and indeed back east to discuss this issue with many people -- even in the province of Quebec. I spent some time with the government there to find out what was going on. I've consulted with the governments of Ontario and Alberta.

The issue with the MAI is whether or not it's desirable, in the context of globalized trade, to allow corporations that are foreign to a particular country to be treated as domestics. That means: should we give them equal rights or a corporate bill of rights within our country, in order for them to be able to access our resource base and expand their investments?

On the surface, I hear what many members of the Liberal Party are saying: that we have to encourage investment into

[ Page 7219 ]

British Columbia. I couldn't agree more; I think we do have to encourage investment. That investment has to be encouraged in many ways, and there are many ways in which we can do it. I also hear that we don't want to be putting in place . . . . In a chamber such as this, I think this is a historic debate. Let there be no question that this is the only Legislative Assembly in Canada that is actually debating the issue of the MAI.

No others have, because most others either believe it to be an issue that isn't worthy of their constituents' attention or believe that the federal government is going to look to their interest in the final analysis. So this is a historic debate that we should be having here -- a historic debate that points to two fundamental principles.

We were a staples economy, and we are still largely a staples economy. We are, in British Columbia, still a staples economy. That is why, when the Asian economy collapses, we suffer here because of the loss to our resource base, which is primary extractive: our forest industry.

And what this says is that the international corporate entity that looks at Canada as an enormous base of resource wealth should have unfettered access to that resource base, should be able to maximize its profit, to expatriate it and take it out, and that government should be restricted in their ability to put in place laws that protect domestic investment, protect domestic labour, protect utilities and put in place Crown corporate entities that make sure that the interests of our citizens are protected first.

Now, I am not anti-free trade. I'm not. I think the globalized economy is a fact of life. I understand, I think to a reasonable degree, exactly how it works. But I also understand the clear distinction between what is in the interest of a corporate board of directors and what is in the interest of this particular assembly. The corporate boards of directors have as their mandate to make money for their shareholders. Profit is their game. I don't have a problem with that at all. I think that's their mandate, and I think many of them do very well at it.

In fact, the ten largest multinational corporations in the world today have a greater GDP than this country has. I don't for a moment try to diminish what it is that they're doing, but the mandate of this Legislature and the mandate of the House of Commons is the well-being of the people.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Corporate entities look after profit; governments look after people. If we are going to effectively look after people, we must not have our hands tied in our ability to do that because a corporate enterprise comes along and decides that they are going to have, through negotiations through the OECD, an opportunity to be able to fetter federal and provincial legislatures from protecting the very people we are mandated to protect: the people. So it seems to me that when we see an agreement such the MAI come along and we start to understand the ramifications of what is in the agreement . . . .

I would strongly, strongly urge the members of this Legislative Assembly who have not read the latest text to read it, because I hear a lot of misinformation in this chamber about what is and is not in this agreement. Read the text of the agreement. Not all of it is bad; actually, some of it will help Canadian investments abroad. We might look at those aspects of this agreement to say: "You know what? I think there are some areas here in which Canadians can benefit."

But where the sections are bad -- and there are some sections in here that are extremely bad -- we find that they speak to the very right of government to be able to govern. For the first time, it provides the right for international corporations, treated as domestic, to sue governments and to have compensation from governments if we pass laws in the interests of our people -- the people who elect us -- that fail to support the interests of the corporation. That's what this is all about, and this is why this is so dangerous.

I guess it is really is a matter of whether or not you think it's important for the parliamentary democratic process to continue along. We might argue that in these negotiations, most of those who sit at the table . . . . This is why I had so much of a problem with this last amendment: the government isn't at the table. It's not like the Canadian government is sitting there. It's not like NAFTA or the FTA in that sense, because what this does is build on NAFTA and the FTA.

If the government wanted to cut free trade, the Prime Minister would do what he did down in Chile, he would do what he did with Israel, and he would do what he's been doing all over South America: set up a continental free trade agreement. Now, I'll tell you what: Canadians don't have a clue what's in any of that, either. They haven't come out and shown to us what they're doing. They didn't debate it in the last federal election.

I guess it's a question of whether or not we think that the executive branch of government should be empowered beyond the legislative branch of government so that the executive branch can, by international agreement, essentially fetter the right of the legislative branch -- that is, those of us here who are legislators -- to pass laws to protect the rights and interests of our citizens. It's whether or not we as British Columbians should allow the federal government to enter into and sign an agreement that quite frankly will bind this Legislative Assembly, at least in practice, in our ability to pass laws.

When I went back to Ottawa . . . . And I would point out that I first raised this matter in the Legislative Assembly on April 8, 1997, over a year ago, in a question that I put to the Premier about the MAI, at which point the Premier said that he wasn't familiar with the content of the document. In fact, very few on the other side of the House knew what was in it. Most people didn't even know what the MAI was all about. The only reason I knew was because I had the agreement brown-enveloped to me by somebody saying: "What do you think?" I read it and was horrified at the time.

It's been considerably amended since, because the public, the Canadian people -- not government -- have stood up and said: "You know what? We've got this information." I put it on the Internet; others put it on the Internet. There is now an international network on the Internet that deals with the MAI. I'll tell you, the public are informed.

The first group to come out in opposition was the governors of the western United States, who said: "Hey, hey, what's going on here? This is a violation of states' rights." The next group to come out were the people in France and the European countries, who were saying: "Hold on a second. We don't like what's in here with respect to a whole host of things around which culture is a large component." Then we saw in

[ Page 7220 ]

Canada a grass-roots movement, which is quite frankly encouraging, that said: "You know what? We're going to hold our governments accountable." I tried to make it an issue in the last federal election, although I didn't really want to get involved on a partisan basis in the last federal election. You know what? I couldn't get any of the leaders to take it up as an issue.

To be sure, the NDP had an interest in it. They were the most receptive to talking about it. The Bloc thought it was interesting but really not a gut issue. The Liberals wanted nothing to do with it. The Reform Party weren't sure where they were going on the matter because, you know, they're pro-free traders, and they weren't too sure what they were going to do with this issue. The Conservatives didn't even want to talk about free trade for fear it would raise the spectre of times past, and they didn't want to have anything to do with that. Yet that was the time, hon. Speaker, that Canadians should have been broadly consulted -- in the last election. They weren't and they haven't been since.

When I went back to Ottawa, I decided that I would focus on two issues. I'm going to just talk to those two issues give reasons why I'm going to support this motion today. The first is that within the context of the Canadian constitution, the federal government cannot bind this Legislative Assembly with respect to an international agreement on trade that limits our ability to exercise our sovereign right over that which we have guaranteed jurisdictional authority. It cannot do that.

You know, when I put that to the parliamentary committee, there wasn't one member on that committee -- including the Clerks who were there and other lawyers who were sitting around -- who disagreed. Why? Because there is ample case law in Canada that says that I am correct. They can't do it. In order for it to affect this Legislative Assembly, this House would have to pass enabling legislation that would allow this agreement to take effect.

The problem is, as the Minister of Health has just correctly pointed out, not all matters that affect British Columbians fall within the legislative purview of the province. The matter of health and the federal statutes regulating it is one example. So where you have competing interests, provincial and federal, and the federal government is a signature to this agreement, we are bound by it de facto. If we pass a law in this province at the legislative level that violates this agreement, the court grievance will be against the signature of the federal government, which will then seek restitution against us.

Let's not forget that they hold control over the transfer of dollars to this province. Even though by constitution they can't do it -- and I would even argue that the case law is very clear that they can't do it -- in effect, the powers of the federal government are enormous in this matter.

The second issue I want to raise about this, and the reason why this motion needs to be passed today, is because of the increased power that the court of law is exhibiting over the legislative supremacy of lawmaking. This is a very, very important issue, because it speaks to the question of provincial Crown lands and jurisdictions on Crown lands -- particularly in light of aboriginal treaty negotiations which, as we all know, are being dealt with at the federal level right now.

You know, when I raised the question of the MAI's impact on the treaty negotiation process and the impact of the federal jurisdictional matter here and of future joint ventures with international companies with self-governing first nations, they hadn't even thought about it. They said: "Oh gee, yeah. Wow." Do you know what? There are a lot of complicated problems here.

[4:30]

When we look at Delgamuukw and we understand the impact that the Supreme Court of Canada has with respect to the Delgamuukw ruling . . . . It says, interestingly enough -- and every single member of this Legislature had better listen to what it says, because we're all going to have to deal with it -- that future treaties that come down on land that is under claim are to be treated in the same way that they are treated if they are reserve lands.

Reserve lands are federal in jurisdiction, and if all lands under treaty, as per Delgamuukw, are now considered to be treated equally, they will be treated as though they are federal in jurisdiction. This is a huge, huge problem, and nobody seems to be talking about it. Nobody seems to think it's an issue. It takes me back to April 8, 1997, when nobody in this legislative chamber had even heard about the MAI.

We have to be ahead of the game here. We can't be constantly running behind, trying to grab the tail of a federal government that is taking us in a direction that maybe Canadians don't want to go. We have an obligation to British Columbians -- a responsibility to speak out on behalf of those people who elect us -- to say: "Just a second. We need to slow this process down, because there are big implications for what's coming here that we haven't thought through clearly." Not all are going to be negative; some may well be positive. Many may well be very negative.

We had better know the difference between the two, and we had better be very clear on exactly what the language means when we put a signature to this agreement and bind future generations of Canadians to the text of this deal.

What really outrages me is that from 1995 to today, there have been no public hearings across Canada sponsored by any government, which is the reason that I think we ought to go with Motion 43. The reason that I didn't want it to go to a parliamentary committee of this House is that first of all, they infrequently meet. Second, I think we're going to have to have a much broader base of expert resources at those hearings.

I'll tell you why this is important, hon. Speaker. Mark my words today, because I sure hope that we're not here a year from now debating what I'm about to tell you now. The OECD know that they have hit a roadblock. They know that the public, by virtue of the kind of knowledge that is now spread through the Internet -- which is a great way to get to know what's going on, provided you discern what's right and what's wrong and what's accurate and what isn't . . . . The public are very, very well versed in what's going on. There's a groundswell movement, which, frankly, I'm so encouraged by.

Canadians are finally being able to read, to understand and to get up to speak. When I went to a speech on the MAI that was given in Courtenay, there were over 300 people in the little town who were interested in this subject. They were overflowing the room; they couldn't even put enough seats in the room. That tells me there's a huge interest. In Vernon the same kind of thing happened. I've been all over the province talking about this.

Mark my word, the reason it is important that we have this committee is not because the MAI will proceed under OECD -- because it probably will not. Members of the Liberal opposition have said that it's all but dead. No, it is not. It's all but finished its course through the OECD, because they know they cannot move that way. That route will take them directly to legislative assemblies where they will have to implement legislation. And trade law will have to be implemented to make this document work.

So what will they do? They will take it to the World Trade Organization. Mark my word today, they will go to the WTO. They will not even have to go through the legislative process.

[ Page 7221 ]

British Columbians might only think back to GATT and the GATT rulings on our fish. Think back to GATT and how GATT has affected us over and over again, with respect to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade prior to becoming its World Trade format. We find ourselves constantly in a negative situation because we cannot protect the interests of British Columbians, because we are bound by international agreement, by international trade law -- much of which is based upon U.S. trade law in our case because of the FTA and NAFTA, which limits our ability.

One of the darkest days I've had in this House -- and you know, it's a flick of a moment that most people won't even remember . . . . I remember when my then colleague from Okanagan East got up and passionately debated against the changing of the Mineral Tenure Act. You know what? Many members of this House may not even remember that. This was prior to the last election -- a different Premier, a different minister. The amendment of the Mineral Tenure Act was made. The definition of free miner was changed to eliminate the need for it to be Canadian, and it could now be an American.

The question was: why are we having to amend this Mineral Tenure Act? The answer was: to bring it into line with NAFTA. What does that mean in terms of our potential? It means that our ability to start to move Canadian investment into Canada and to protect Canadians, so that we are owners of our nation and not tenants within it, becomes less and less possible. It's a dark day, hon. Speaker, because what it tells me, even in that tiny little amendment . . . . It was in a miscellaneous statutes act; most people won't even remember it.

It changed considerably aspects of law in British Columbia to harmonize it with continental trade law, which is directed, governed and pushed by the United States of America. We're doing that every day.

The assault on the Canadian health industry is something that the minister raised. But I want to digress very briefly in talking about health, because health will be impacted if we don't expressly make sure it is not. I'm encouraged by what I hear from the members opposite on the government side when they talk about the need to make sure we protect universal health care. That's one of the primary concerns in putting this motion in front of the Canadian people today, by way of the debate in the B.C. Legislature.

I'm really encouraged by the words of the former Health minister, now the Minister of Finance, when she said that one of the reasons she really wants to push this is because she is absolutely dedicated to universal health care.

Tomorrow a motion comes before the Commons that will guarantee that. I hope we will match that motion with one that is on the order paper in my name today -- a motion that deals with putting in place a proper compensation package for people who are infected with hepatitis C, as the Justice Krever report recommends.

If we are really serious about protecting that which is Canadian -- health care is one of them, and this violates it -- then I hope that this motion will come forward for debate on Wednesday and that we'll pass this motion as well, which will put action to the words that we heard today in our efforts to better consult with British Columbians on the MAI. Let's really protect health care by making sure that this motion, which talks about the need to have a broader base of compensation for those people who contracted hepatitis C prior to 1986 . . . .

Let's make sure that British Columbia will be leaders in this debate, as well, as we are leaders in this debate on MAI by virtue of these two motions before us today. We are debating Motion 43 right now.

Hon. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying two things. There are those out there who will say that the people opposed to MAI are a bunch of freaks who run around and say the sky is falling. They're called Chicken Littles and all kinds of things. They're told that they're out to lunch, and they're so far on the fringe of politics that you shouldn't deal with these people. They're called nut cases; they're called all kinds of things.

I think that's an absolute offence to people who have taken the time to read a document, to think about their country and the future of their families, their children, and who say that we simply don't want to go this route, because we have seen how other countries have suffered at the hands of unfettered access to their resource base. Maybe I am a nut; maybe I am crazy. There are those who say I'm out on the political fringe; I think some of my colleagues, from time to time, say that. But I don't think I'm crazy. I don't think I'm nuts when it comes to this document, because I've taken the time to read it, research it and consult broadly with Canadians right across this country.

I have to tell you that yes, there are people who will tell you there's nothing to worry about. There are people who see that the investment opportunities of Canadians abroad will be greatly enhanced by it. There is some merit, frankly, to their debate. Those debates are not without merit. But the impact, the effect, on Canadians is far greater.

As a result of that, I think we have to pass this motion today. We have to make a little bit of history in Canada by saying that on this day, April 27, British Columbians in this Legislative Assembly stood up, took notice and did something for the people of this province. It's said that we want consultation. We no longer want government to act without mandate. We want to take back our home; we want to take back this country. We want to be owners of this great nation and not tenants within it.

The second point I would make is: for those people who would argue that the MAI is dead, don't believe it to be true. We are on a very interesting path with respect to the evolution of this country. There are those who would argue that the real issue is that of the nation -- Quebec and the rest of us. There are some who would say that we're at a point now where we're becoming swallowed up by the globalized economy. There are others who would say that Canada has never been stronger.

I would say that depending on the choice we make over the next number of years with respect to how we participate in this new globalized economy, either we will entrench Canada as one of the finest, greatest and strongest nations that is currently on the globe or we will allow its disintegration and its absorption into our neighbour to the south. This debate has been raging in Canada from time to time, more than others, since Confederation. This was the very basis for why we built our railway west. This is why we established this great country; this is why we resisted continental influences.

This is why we stood up and said that this nation, Canada, means something quite different than the nation to our south and that this nation, Canada, is a nation of people who have compassion, love and a desire to see a community that builds tolerance of all people from various languages, cultures and religions.

This is a country worth fighting for, a country worth being proud of, a country worth standing up and making a stand for. That's what this motion does today. It says that we, as Canadians and as British Columbians in this Legislative Assembly, can stand and make history by finally saying that

[ Page 7222 ]

today is the first day that we will move forward to take back our country, so that we can once again be proud owners of Canada and not simply tenants within it.

S. Orcherton: Hon. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion, and I also rise of behalf of my constituents in Victoria-Hillside. I've had a lot of opportunities, as have other members of this House, to talk to people and different organizations around the province on this issue. I have come to the conclusion -- and I want to be very clear for the members in this House -- that the multilateral agreement on investment is bad news for the people of British Columbia and bad news for the people of Canada. It is good news only for foreign investors and transnational corporations. I am opposed to the proposed multilateral agreement on investment.

The government of British Columbia was the first government in Canada to speak against this agreement publicly and the only government to appear before the federal committee in opposition to the MAI. It is my view that if adopted, the MAI would place unacceptable restrictions on the ability of democratically elected governments to act on behalf of citizens at the federal, provincial and local levels.

This agreement would extend and entrench one of NAFTA's most troubling features: the unilateral right of corporate investors to challenge a broad range of legislative and regulatory measures -- in short, the ability of those investors to sue governments for enacting legislation, regulation and policy that, while in the best interests of citizens, impinge on the ability of the investor to make a profit.

The local-hire policy in the jobs and timber accord would be at risk, as it contravenes the MAI. Alumax jobs in B.C. -- a huge investment for this province, where Hydro power surpluses are being used as a lever to encourage that investment . . . . Under the MAI, that lever would have to be offered to all corporations considering investment in British Columbia and potentially to all existing corporations currently engaged in business in British Columbia, effectively giving B.C. no advantage to secure investment within our province. Yet they say this agreement is about investment.

After all, it is called the multilateral agreement on investment. But what's it really about? I believe it's really about transnational corporations, it's about special rights and privileges for those corporations, and it is about corporate governance. In effect, it is a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations.

[4:45]

I believe that the fundamental underpinning of nationhood ought not to be solely and exclusively profit. Yet this agreement, as its base foundation, holds that tenet true. It is fundamentally, solely and exclusively to secure profit. We've often referred to such changes as the North American Free Trade Agreement as the thin edge of the wedge. Well, let me say that this is not the thin edge of the wedge; this is the thick edge of the wedge. In fact, this is the wedge itself. In my view, this is the wedge that will split the very fibre of democracy and the very fibre of our country.

There is no balance in corporate government; there is profit, not people. There is corporate edict, not democratic process, and there is the unilateral decision-making that leads only to the bottom line. Yet there are those who believe that this is a good deal and that this is the right thing to do. Who are they? They are the transnationals, the federal Liberal government and those who believe that corporate policy should and must supplant public policy.

There's been some discussion today -- and I think most members are aware, but if not, I want to remind them -- about the fact that while this deal has been slowed down over recent times, this week there's a coming-together of the corporations along with the federal parties. They are holding secret meetings in Paris, and negotiations on the MAI continue. There are some -- sad to say, some in this House -- who say that those negotiations should continue and that negotiations should proceed.

This agreement is about the mobility of capital; it is about how capital moves from one country to another country. It is really and truly, in my view, about the mobility of capital. In a real sense, the effect this agreement would have on the people of Canada and the people of this province is in fact a type of capital punishment that would be inflicted on the people. Yet there are some who say: "Continue to negotiate." I ask: how do we negotiate capital punishment? How do we do that?

Do we say that we want the people of this country and of this province to die by lethal injection or by hanging or by other means? Is that how we negotiate the capital punishment that's being inflicted on us through this agreement? We can do better than that. We don't have to continue to negotiate, and that's one of the reasons I support this motion.

As well, they say that if B.C. doesn't agree with a clause, we can take a reservation on that clause. Let me tell you how this works. Some members of this House will recall the negative billing process of the cable companies four years or so ago. They said: "We're going to give you the programs and the channels, and we're going to bill you for them unless you tell us that you don't want them. You get billed unless you state that you don't want them." You know, the same principle applies in the multilateral agreement on investment. It applies to the provincial government unless we take a reservation.

Let me tell you who the bill on the MAI will be paid by. It will be paid by you, hon. Speaker, by me and by future generations of British Columbians; yet British Columbia is not at that table. We are not having meaningful input, yet we are told that the MAI will apply in totality to British Columbia unless we take a reservation. Reservations are temporary solutions designed to secure a deal. They are temporary solutions, and they offer no security for the people of British Columbia. This agreement was scheduled for sign-off in May of this year. As we sit, the country's negotiators continue to cross the t's and dot the i's on this agreement.

Our government should stand clearly opposed to this proposed agreement, and as British Columbians we should continue to argue to protect job creation, resource management and conservation, the environment, health care and social services, culture and Canadian content, and provincial jurisdiction. The federal government should not proceed further with negotiations until they have a clear mandate from the Canadian people. This secret negotiating process has never seen the light of the House of Commons. Why? Is it not required? Let's have public consultation.

That's why I'm pleased to stand in support of this motion. It provides an opportunity for the people of British Columbia to receive information from and impart information to the government of British Columbia so we can move forward as a people. We should be arguing to see the current draft text.

Let's talk about labour and environmental standards. What about the rights of provincial jurisdictions? We must take the necessary measures to ensure that provincial rights are protected. This agreement has had no meaningful input from the province of British Columbia -- no input -- yet the federal government is obligated constitutionally to respect

[ Page 7223 ]

provincial interest and provincial jurisdiction. Many matters in the multilateral agreement on investment fall squarely within the areas of shared or exclusive provincial jurisdiction, yet we as a government and the people of the British Columbia have had no input. The interests of British Columbians have not been protected in this matter. It is my view that it is a huge stretch for the federal government to assume that the provisions of the multilateral agreement on investment could be applied to British Columbia.

I want to leave you with a thought. It's actually a quote the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway made last year around this time: "If any semblance of democracy is to be salvaged in Canada, steps must be taken to forestall this surrender to corporate tyranny." As an assembly and as a House, we should think about that. We should think about that as this motion moves forward and out to the people for discussion and debate. Let this day be a step for us to continue to build the balance that has made Canada and British Columbia strong, to stand collectively as a House and to call for full public discussion and debate so that we can shed light on this deal.

I received a copy of correspondence from the Hon. Sergio Marchi to a constituent of mine. The minister responsible for this investment deal at the federal level said in his correspondence: "The government's position has remained the same throughout these negotiations. We will only sign a deal that serves the Canadian interest, and to this end we are continuing to consult with groups across the country on this issue." That letter was dated March 2, 1998. I know of no consultation going on across this country on this issue. I cannot understand what the Hon.

Minister Sergio Marchi is talking about when he talks about public consultation. Thank goodness the government of British Columbia spoke up on this issue early and has brought this motion before this assembly to be debated, so that in fact the people of British Columbia can speak out on this issue, can receive information on the issue and can make a valued decision on this multilateral agreement on investment.

Through that process, I think the people of British Columbia will see that the multilateral agreement could potentially strike down policies in a wide range of areas which are of great importance to Canadians: the maintenance of medicare and not-for-profit public and social services; the review of foreign takeovers and new foreign investments to make sure that they create jobs and economic activity here in Canada; support for Canadian-based enterprises which support our communities; and support for Canadian artists and cultural industries. These are all in jeopardy under this agreement.

This agreement would allow corporations to challenge government decisions and policies before international panels, but it requires nothing of them in return. This would work to undermine our ability to regulate corporations in the public interest. Some say this is an appropriate approach. This House should know that those panels that are being proposed are not elected. They're not accountable, yet they would provide the final decision on any disputes around the multilateral agreement on investment.

Hon. Speaker, I think that this is a good motion for us to be debating in this House. I would encourage all members from all sides and all parties to support this motion as it moves forward. When it is passed -- I predict that it will, because I think the people of British Columbia require and in fact demand this kind of public hearing process -- I hope that all the members will participate. We do have to stand strong and collectively her