1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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)

THURSDAY, JULY 5, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10733 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Mine Development Assessment Act (Bill 59). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 10733

Tabling Documents –– 10733

Oral Questions

Export of fish. Mr. Miller –– 10733

New tanker station in Juan de Fuca Strait. Mr. G. Janssen –– 10734

Nursing shortage. Mr. Peterson –– 10734

Oil spill cleanup expenses. Mr. G. Janssen –– 10734

Premier's invitation to First Nations Congress –– 10734

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Williams –– 10735

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10735

Mr. Guno

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Jones

Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act (Bill 37).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Veitch) –– 10742

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of International Business and Immigration estimates. (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 10743

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Harcourt

Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Jones

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the liberty of wishing two of our

members a happy birthday today. The second member for Richmond (Mr.

Loenen) and the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) are both

celebrating a birthday, and I'd like the House to join me in wishing

them a happy birthday.

MS. MARZARI : Visiting us from

Australia today, here at a conference at Dunsmuir Lodge, are Gillian

Branagan from Sydney, Australia, and Joan Rae and Marj Home from

Melbourne. They are accompanied in the gallery by a young

seven-year-old fresh from a brilliant piano recital at the Unitarian

Church in Vancouver not so long ago, my seven-year-old son, Daniel

Straker. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today is the newly-named chairperson of

the government's Day Care Task Force. Would the House please welcome

Nicole Parton.

MR. CLARK : I have the privilege today

of introducing from Kamloops Rod McDermid, who is the president of one

of the Kamloops ridings, and his wife Ruth and children Andrew and

Sarah. Accompanying them today is a Rotary Club exchange student from

Mexico, Santiago Huerta. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Would the House please join me in welcoming my sister-in-law, Yvonne Zirnhelt, from that great B.C. constituency of Toronto.

Introduction of Bills

MINE DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT ACT

behalf of Hon. Mr. Davis, Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mine Development

Assessment Act.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, the

purpose of this bill is to formalize the province's mine development

review process in legislation. The process and its antecedents date

back to 1976. During its 14 years of operations, almost 150 coal and

mineral mining projects have entered the review process. About 80 have

received the approval in principle and close to 60 have begun

construction, with most now either in full production or closed due to

the exhausting of reserves.

The goal of the process is to facilitate and expedite sound, publicly acceptable

mining ventures in British Columbia. The review process sponsors and implements

a comprehensive procedure for project review and approval based on integrating

environment and economy. Legislation of the process is deemed necessary at this

time to clearly demonstrate our commitment to formally review proposed mine

development and to increase public confidence in the review process by establishing

public consultation provisions in law, including, in particular, provision for

public hearings conducted by independent assessment panels, where necessary.

Bill

59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the annual report for the B.C. Systems Corporation.

Hon.

Mr. Couvelier tabled the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, in accordance with

section 15 (2) of

that act.

Oral Questions

EXPORT OF FISH

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries with regard to

the free trade ruling and the loss of export restrictions on fish. As

the minister is aware, the salmon season has started, and various

proposals have been considered by a task force, including but not

restricting a Crown corporation and a landing tax. Given that we are

into the season, could the minister advise why that task force has not

met? I understand there was a belated attempt to set one up today. Some

recommendations have been brought forward to halt the erosion of jobs

from British Columbia to Washington.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

To the member, my staff have been meeting about recommendations that

could be made concerning the implementation of a tax. As I understand

it, the structure is in place; it could be implemented. We do not see

at this stage a mass exodus of salmon for export position, as some may

claim. We have not seen the figures to document a mass exodus of the

commodity to any great increase. As you are well aware, there is a

limitation of 20 percent as the maximum that could ever be exported

under the agreement at this stage.

MR. MILLER : A

supplemental. The minister is wrong. One hundred percent can be

exported, and he should know that. Twenty percent can be exported over

the side, and the feds have granted 15 Y licences for that.

The UFAWU — the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union —

has launched a Canada fleet campaign to encourage people to sell to

B.C. processors. They have requested financial assistance from the

minister. Is the minister prepared now to assist these working people

in the fight to save B.C. jobs? They have already spent about $60,000

of their own money. Are you prepared to give a few bucks to help them

save their jobs?

[ Page 10734 ]

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I obviously am as concerned as the member opposite and as concerned as

the union is about the exporting of product or the loss of jobs. Let me

assure you that statement has been made very clear on many occasions.

The

fact of the matter is that we do not have a vote within budget, per se,

which allows that to take place. Furthermore, there is no documentation

at this stage that there is a mass loss of jobs. I think you are

presuming something that has not happened.

MR. MILLER :

The minister sounds perilously like he wants to close the barn door

after the horse has bolted, and I hope that's not the case.

The

minister is well aware, or should be, that 100 percent of our fish can

be trans-shipped through processing plants which you license. I have

seen letters the minister has written on that.

Recently

B.C. Packers moved a canning line to Anacortes, Washington. Has the

minister advised B.C. processors in the strongest possible terms that

we object to the shift of processing capacity and jobs from British

Columbia down to Washington State?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

Yes, I have had the opportunity to meet with the Fisheries Council of

British Columbia on a number of occasions, and we have discussed during

those meetings the importance of the fish-processing industry to the

economy of this province.

Whether or not you are assuming again — as I understand your statement, hon. member — that

we are going to have the processing industry entirely established in

the U.S., I do not believe that for one minute, because they are

corporate citizens who believe very strongly in operating in Canada and

particularly in British Columbia.

NEW TANKER STATION IN

JUAN DE FUCA STRAIT

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Last year an oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island polluted

beaches up and down the coast. The risk of an oil spill on southwest

Vancouver Island will increase if a tanker station is established in

the strait of Juan de Fuca.

The Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds) brags about the state-of-the-art spill equipment

located in Vancouver. He also likes to brag about the tugs there. The

recent task force reports show that the province doesn't even have an

inventory of spill-response resources. Will the minister now admit that

this government has learned no lesson and that no concrete action has

been taken in the year and a half since the Grays Harbour spill?

NURSING SHORTAGE

MR. PETERSON :

My question is to the Minister of Health. In view of the difficulties

being experienced in staffing cardiac-operating-room and intensive-care

nursing positions in the province, will the minister consider

implementing a bonus-pay plan for areas of nursing shortages similar to

that just announced by Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children?

HON. J. JANSEN :

First of all, the Toronto sick children's hospital is a non-union

hospital, and it has more flexibility in hiring nurses. We have put

forward, as the members opposite know, a proposal to provide an

incentive to attract nurses into specialty areas. This has met with

resistance from the nursing union to this point in time. We hope that

through the next negotiations they will recognize that.

The

member should be aware that already today in British Columbia our

starting rate for the nursing profession is some $1.42 an hour higher

than in Ontario. We do have attractive rates here. We have recognized

the concerns regarding critical care nursing. We are addressing them.

O I L SPILL CLEANUP EXPENSES

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I have a question for the Solicitor-General. Volunteers who helped

clean up the oil spill on the west coast of Vancouver Island are now in

court in the United States seeking to recoup some of their expenses.

Can the Solicitor-General inform us what legal aid has been made

available for British Columbia residents affected by the Grays Harbour

spill? Or will ordinary British Columbians be left to assume the

government's responsibility?

[2:15]

HON. MR. FRASER : He's asked the wrong minister.

PREMIER'S INVITATION TO

FIRST NATIONS CONGRESS

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the Premier. The First Nations Congress has

invited the Premier to attend next week's special assembly on

aboriginal title and constitutional questions. I and a number of

members of my caucus have accepted that invitation, and we're looking

forward to discussing these issues with the aboriginal leadership of

British Columbia, and also Elijah Harper. Can the Premier tell us today

if he has decided to attend this important gathering of B.C.'s

aboriginal leaders?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, I have not received a formal invitation. I did read about it

in the newspaper. There may be an invitation in the mail that I haven't

seen as yet; I'll certainly inquire about that. However, I understand

the Leader of the Opposition is attending. I don't know exactly what

the date is. Perhaps he could tell me about that. I understand it's on

the Queen Charlotte Islands, but I don't know all the details.

MR. SPEAKER : This is question period. The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, it's next week, July 10 to 12. If the Premier finds that the government jets

[ Page

10735 ]

are occupied — as they should be — there

is still space aboard the commercially scheduled flight that we'll be

taking. In fact, I have a reservation waiting in the Premier's name. If

he'd be willing to save the taxpayers some money, I'm sure that

reservation would be there. Mr. Premier, if you'd like to attend that

conference, there is a space waiting for you on that plane.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I suppose if any of us really wanted to save the taxpayers' money, we'd

pay for it ourselves. I understood the Leader of the Opposition to say

that he is attending and a number from his caucus are attending. I've

just checked the dates that you've given me, and I find that it's

Tuesday and Wednesday. A number of us have House business to attend to;

we must be in the Legislature at least some of the time.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a new question. I would think the Premier's answer

shows the importance he places in resolving this very serious issue in

this province. He has other business and so does his Minister of Native

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). He talks about us travelling on our own

money. I regard this to be the public's business.

I also

regard what we are expending their tax money on to be the public's

business. I made public my travel logs for 1989-90, and I'm still

waiting for the Premier and the cabinet ministers to do the same. Will

you do the same, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'll try to take the questions out of those comments made

from across the floor. First of all, it's good to have it confirmed

that in fact you're travelling at the taxpayers' expense, as has been

the custom for the Leader of the Opposition and others. Much of it is

politicking. I would suggest that a good part of what you do on the

Queen Charlottes may be politicking as well.

I would like

to see an agenda for what is proposed for discussion, because I've just

been advised by the Minister of Native Affairs that he did not receive

an invitation either. Frankly, I would be very interested. If this is

something other than a political event, I would like to know about it.

If it's a political event and you're travelling there, Mr. Leader of

the Opposition, I would suggest you pay for it. That's only fair.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, to the minister responsible for the PNE. Two days ago you

said you wouldn't interfere in the PNE dispute, yet on the same day you

did just that. As you said: "I seen my duty and I done it." Good on

you. Why didn't the president of the PNE "see his duty and do it"?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, indeed the minister did not get involved

in the collective bargaining process, which I committed myself not to do. We

did get involved in bridging a particular problem that involved a 60-day extension

of the current agreement to make sure that all areas were covered, not only

in the preparation but in the running of the fair, the trade shows and all the

ancillary happenings that take place on those PNE grounds.

can say, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very happy that the matter is settled. I

know that the part-time workers at the fair are happy. I know that the

casual workers at the fair are pleased. I know that the full-time

workers are pleased. I know that the CUPE union is pleased. I know that

the B.C. Federation of Labour is pleased. I know that all of the

private-sector employers on the fair grounds are very happy. Indeed,

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the fair-goers and the public in

general are happy. I'm just sad that the member opposite is not 100

percent pleased as well.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 12: minister's office, $267, 471 (continued).

MR. GUNO :

My learned colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has in

his fashion thoroughly canvassed, I thought, all the issues relating to

the estimates of this ministry, so I'll be brief.

I want to

revisit an issue that I don't think has been dealt with in this debate

in this particular estimate, and that is the matter relating to the

tragic conflict between the justice system and the aboriginal people. I

say tragic for a number of reasons. One, it results in so many wasted

lives. We see many young aboriginal men and women getting their start

in adult life behind bars. It is tragic because it is often the only

way that this society responds to what is largely a socio-economic

matter. It is tragic because it stems from misunderstanding and fear.

Most of all — to the Attorney-General — it is tragic because

it is avoidable. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this government has so

far demonstrated indifference to the plight of the aboriginal people.

want to cite the statistics again: over 16 percent of the inmates in

our provincial correctional centres are aboriginal people, while they

comprise only 3 percent of our population. As I have said, I have cited

these statistics every opportunity I can in this House, and yet I only

receive a collective yawn from the government side.

The

Attorney-General talked this morning rather self-righteously about

judging people on the basis of their performance. If we were to apply

those questionable ethics in judging this government's performance with

regard to this problem, I would say that the judgment would be harsh

indeed. I raise this matter not only because I am an aboriginal person

and because it affects aboriginal people; I think it goes further than

that. The matter goes to the heart of the integrity of our justice

system. I would submit that as long as we fail to make some real effort

[ Page 10736 ]

change the situation, there is a serious blight in our justice system.

There

is another ethical standard that the Attorney-General may consider by

which a government or a society should be judged, and that is how well

it cares for the least protected in our society. Is there a double

standard in our justice system — one for the rich and privileged

and another for the disadvantaged, the poor, the native people? The

Attorney-General promised to deal with this particular problem last

year, but I've yet to see any tangible result of that particular

undertaking, or any evidence that this government is serious about

dealing with this situation, and I think it's serious. I think it's

serious when you have a disproportionate number of our population in

our jails.

Perhaps if the Attorney-General would advise his

Premier to quit spending millions of dollars fighting the aboriginal

people in courts and reallocate that sum to deal with the conditions of

life on the reserve and urban centres that give rise to these

conflicts, we could start to truly call our society tolerant and just.

think it's appropriate at this time to pay tribute to Elijah Harper,

who had his own tragic run-in with the justice system in Manitoba, and

who stood up for the aboriginal people in Canada. I would like to

repeat his words. He said that for so long the aboriginal people have

been the most patient, the most accommodating and have endured over a

century of oppression. Implicit in that, I would suggest to the

Attorney-General, is that perhaps the aboriginal people will no longer

be so accommodating, that the aboriginal people will fight to take

their rightful place in Canada as a distinct people. I would submit

that Elijah Harper personifies that determination.

I think

there are solutions, many of which have been offered by the various

tribal councils and other Indian organizations, and they ask simply

that they be given the opportunity to develop and administer their own

justice system. The other solution that has been offered is that this

government has to take the lead, along with the aboriginal people, to

create a public awareness about the conditions that lead aboriginal

people to end up in our jails in such disproportionate numbers, where

the conditions are often those of poverty and despair.

The

other solution that has been often offered is that a sort of cultural

awareness program should be initiated to provide the judges and court

personnel a sense of what they're dealing with when aboriginal people

come before the courts. Certain initiatives have been tried by a

particular judge in Kamloops, who has developed a booklet that has in

it ways of dealing with aboriginal people, to be aware of some of the

cultural differences that sometimes are misunderstood and lead to

unnecessary incarceration.

[2:30]

Finally,

I would like to see, Mr. Attorney-General, a comprehensive inquiry

launched into the aboriginal and justice system conflict. This has been

done in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and just recently in Alberta. The

Attorney-General had undertaken to contemplate a similar inquiry last

year, and I think the only thing that happened was a day trip into the

Chilcotin country and talking to the tribal groups in a very

superficial way.

I have some specific questions. First, are

there any plans to launch such an inquiry? Second, last year the

Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en presented a proposal that would blend the values

of the western and aboriginal values with the delivery of justice in

that particular area. I would like to know if the Attorney-General has

responded in any way. I understand that there has really been no

response to that rather creative solution provided by these people.

HON. MR. SMITH : May I begin by asking leave of the House to make a brief introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, I'm appreciative of the leave to make an introduction.

I'd like to welcome to the House and the precincts Deanna Rumsey and

her friend from Paris, Helene Auxenfants. Would the House please join

me in making them welcome.

Mr. Chairman, in response to the

issues raised by the member, I want to deal with a couple of the

specific questions he asked. The general question concerned an inquiry.

I said in the House last year that I felt there were other ways of

dealing with that model. I said that as a result of my meetings with

the peoples of the Chilcotin, with whom I have met several times, not

in any way superficially, as the member suggested. I'll show him why in

a moment. I said that at the time because of the concerns expressed to

me by the chiefs and elders from the bands in that area who were

concerned about what that process might lead to and the things that

would be reviewed and reported about the places we might make some

progress. So we agreed, because the request for the inquiry had been

spawned in no small part by reports from the Chilcotin of some very

real and serious problems. They are real and serious, and they deserve

to be addressed.

When we met there last summer and fall and

again in the winter and spring, I made a commitment that together we

would develop a justice council with a cross-cultural component,

appointed or approved for appointment by the native communities, and

that we would fund it. In fact, that has happened. At a meeting about

three weeks or a month ago at Riske Creek, we finalized some agreements

that will see the development of an organization and the hiring of

counsel — a person who has worked as a lawyer with the chiefs for the last several years — who

will be attached to the council and will provide a whole range of

services not only in areas that would otherwise be done by legal aid,

but in education and a number of other areas to be determined by that

council.

well, we have made a commitment to fund and resource that, and we have

entered into — and will continue to enter into — agreements

to assist communities in the Chilcotin in the way they want to be

[ Page

10737 ]

assisted. So it has been far more than what the member suggested was the case.

terms of the proposals that have come from the Gitksan peoples for

their program for unlocking aboriginal justice, there is ongoing work

among this ministry, the Ministry of Native Affairs and other

ministries. Last year I spent time at Kispiox, Hazelton and Kitwanga

with the community leaders to discuss the ways in which we could go

further with this program, as well as some of the other related

programs, particularly in the area of health care and social services.

There is an ongoing relationship among the peoples in the Kispiox, the

Hazeltons, our ministry and other ministries.

You asked a

question relating to how we deal with native issues in the criminal law

area and the case of a disproportionate number of offenders of native

origin who are in jails. I agree with you that it is the case. How are

we dealing with that issue? Well, in a number of ways.

First

of all, we have established within the ministry a division that will

deal with those prosecutions. Secondly, by way of policy change, we

have reduced — I believe now to zero — the number of charges

that previously had gone out in the area of wildlife transgressions for

hunting. Other than for things like pit-lamping, they simply do not go

forward.

I have invited the president of the United Native

Nations to meet with our Crown counsel to develop new diversion

programs. That is going on, and he and others who he will designate are

making an important contribution to that. Also we have initiated a

number of cross-cultural meetings and weekend long conferences

involving the Crown, people in the court services and judges. I believe

the most recent one, if I am not mistaken, was in Prince George, and by

all reports that was extremely successful.

So I don't

dispute for a moment that there is much more that should properly be

done to make the justice system accommodate the needs of the native

community. I don't have any quarrel whatsoever with your position in

that respect.

It is the case, though, that there are a

number of initiatives taking place which I don't think you are aware

of, and that is but a start. It is a fact that the Attorneys-General of

Canada, including the Justice minister for Canada, at our recent

meetings agreed that in this country there should not be a separate

justice system rooted in one's national or racial origin. It is

something we should try to avoid, and I subscribe to that position.

The

flip side of that coin is that the justice system we have must

therefore take on what is an even greater challenge than it now has to

make certain it has programs and develops itself and the laws that it

deals with in a way that deals with native issues appropriately and

sensitively. There is a huge learning exercise.

It is not a partisan issue by any stretch of the imagination, and it is one

where the justice system has not served the native community well over the years.

The justice system is well aware of that, and it has a big responsibility to

rectify that. There are a number of ways we are initiating that and doing it.

We will continue to press that. Most importantly, we will involve members of

the native community extensively in what we're doing, what we're proposing

to do and what they want us to do. That is the process and the program that

I have going in the way I have discussed with you just now.

MR. GUNO :

The Attorney-General mentions a number of initiatives launched in the

Chilcotin area, and I must apologize for describing them as

"superficial." I think they are admirable starts, but that's exactly

what they are, and rather late. I think that's the problem. It's

contained in one area.

The problem is provincewide. There's

conflict on Vancouver Island, in the north and in the interior. It's

happening all over the province. The evidence is clear. How can we in

this society tolerate 16 percent of the native people, who only

comprise 3 percent? I think it's intolerable and a serious failure in

our justice system. I don't think the efforts or initiatives that have

been described by the Attorney-General are nearly enough. Consultation

with the aboriginal community is really just scratching the surface.

I'm

not impressed with some of the things he has described. I still think

that the only way we can deal with this problem is to launch a full,

independent inquiry to really try to come to grips with some of the

problems here. It's not just the justice system. It's a failure of our

society. It has to do with the extreme poverty that exists in the

native communities. It's also as a result of this government's

indifference to the call by the native aboriginal community to deal

with the very fundamental problems of land and aboriginal title.

long as this government is, on the one hand, spending millions of

dollars fighting that particular issue and, on the other hand, handing

out nickels and dimes and saying, "Hey, we're doing a great job," then

no thanks. I don't think that's adequate at all.

There's

one specific question I want to ask. I know that the native law centre

in Terrace has been calling for a second lawyer to be employed there.

Their call is justified. The Terrace native law centre covers a very

wide area involving all of my riding: Stewart, Dease Lake, Telegraph

Creek and Atlin. That's an incredible area to cover with the resources

they have. I'm wondering if the Attorney-General is aware of this

particular problem and how he plans to respond.

HON. MR. SMITH :

I am aware of the request for an additional person at the centre in

Terrace. I'm aware of it from the member and, as well, from the

Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker). Several months ago he

brought me the request, and I have discussed it with the Legal Services

Society, which allocates those kinds of resources. We can and are

looking at doing more so that we can have a line-by-line accountability

of some of these expenditures. I am aware of it, and I am hopeful that

in this budget year we will be able to address it.

[2:45]

[ Page 10738 ]

The member said that we can't tolerate — or at least that it's intolerable —

the number of people who are incarcerated from the native community. He

wondered why any society should tolerate it. I say to you that we can't

and shouldn't tolerate it. In my view, it is a serious failure of the

system. I don't quarrel with that. I also know, whatever resources we

are committing now because of the extent of the problem and the way in

which it crosses a whole host of social issues and agencies, that it is

not one the justice system alone can repair. But the justice system can

make a significant start in improving what we do. We should and will

continue to do that.

You made a comment about some of the

land claim issues that are out there. You also said that some of the

other problems aren't just a problem in isolated areas of the province;

I agree with you. If you got that impression by my reference to the

Chilcotin and to unlocking the aboriginal justice issue in the

northwest part of the province, I apologize, because that wasn't the

intention. I used those as examples. There are similar programs

underway in, obviously, downtown Vancouver, on Vancouver Island and in

the southern interior. There are a whole range of these programs going

on.

You also talked about the millions and millions of

dollars that are spent litigating land claims. I want to put this on

the record again, because one of your colleagues was quoted — he may well have been quoted wrongly —

as saying we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars on land

claims. That is false, except for the Gitksan case, which now is

completed in terms of the trial level. The expenditure on that kind of

litigation in the last fiscal year was $350,000. It is not as it is

made out to be, although, you know, if I had my way, there wouldn't be

litigation about anything. But that's a solicitor speaking.

can tell you that we have made an offer to Canada to settle the McLeod

Lake treaty case. When I met with the chiefs at the longhouse in

Musqueam, I told them that the close of argument in the Delgam Uukw

case would provide us with an opportunity to move on the larger issues.

You are going to see that that in fact will take place. That's the

extent to which I can report on that.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I've sent over to the Attorney-General a

chapter entitled

"Waste Management Act: Recommendations to Improve Enforcement" that is

contained in the booklet, Law Reform for Sustainable Development in British Columbia .

It's by the sustainable development committee of the Canadian Bar

Association, British Columbia branch. It's dated May 11, 1990.

I'll

say at the outset that I'm not going to ask the Attorney-General an

exhaustive list of questions. I just have a couple of questions I'm

going to ask based on this chapter. The first is in the context of some

discussion that took place this morning with regard to the subject of

deals, when it comes to prosecutions under the Waste Management Act,

and the way in which the argument of due diligence often impacts, in

the sense of setting aside the legal process.

I listened

with interest to the comments this morning. You know, we've pointed out

in the past that on the average, for three years, the fines under the

Waste Management Act were less than $35,000 total a year. The

Attorney-General pointed out this morning that there has been quite an

improvement to that. It is true; there has been an improvement in the

amount of the fines and in the number of prosecutions. But the record

has been so horrible that it would have to be a few thousand percent

increase to really be the type of improvement that would make any

difference at all. The fact is that even a 300 percent increase on

$35,000 is still not enough money to send out a signal to the polluters

that their activities of polluting the environment have to stop. But

that's another issue to be dealt with another day, and we canvassed

some of that in the Environment estimates.

I want to deal

with the issue about deals. Perhaps the best example of a deal was one

that was used in the court process in, I believe, 1988. It had to do

with charges that were under the federal Fisheries Act relating to the

Woodfibre pulp mill. In that case the charges were thrown out of court

because a 1971 letter was cited. This letter was in correspondence

between this House's present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), who at that time was the federal Fisheries

minister, and a minister of the provincial government at that time, the

Hon. Ray Williston.

Basically what was stated in that

correspondence was that as long as the Woodfibre pulp mill was

addressing the issue of air emissions, the issue of effluent being

emitted into the water would not be dealt with. In effect, permission

was given to allow that mill to work only on air emissions and to solve

that problem first, and that permission was given in 1971. On the basis

of that really inappropriate argument, that was thrown out of court,

and they were not able to proceed with the charges that had to do with

effluent discharge at that time.

That's just by way of

example, Mr. Chairman. I'm not stating that to get into.... I notice

the Attorney-General consulting with the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Reynolds). I'm not really proposing that we get into a long

historic debate about that particular instance, but I give it as an

example that leads to the kind of recommendation that is....

MR. SERWA :

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm having difficulty finding the

relevancy of deals in 1970 or '71, or whatever it was, to the issue

before us, which is debate of the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I think the member is trying to make a point about deals as they relate to the fines from the Ministry of Environment.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, that is entirely correct — your explanation that this is

relating to a current and active process whereby previous deals

[ Page

10739 ]

are impacting the administration of justice with regard to polluters.

is pointed out by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, what

this means is that there's a paper trail that's been used to avoid

environmental prosecution. The fact is, though, that in the Waste

Management Act, the way it presently exists, mechanisms are in place

whereby an amendment may be provided by a manager in the instance where

a permit is out of compliance. That's one remedy that already exists,

and it's a bureaucratic remedy. There's also a political remedy, where

the Minister of Environment may issue a variance order. Those are two

methods whereby a polluter who's out of compliance can find relief.

It's the position of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association,

with which I agree that it should not be possible for deals that

involve government ministries, either federal or provincial, to

interfere in that process.

I therefore want to affirm

recommendations that are being made in this document that I have cited,

and I would like to ask the minister if, in reviewing this situation,

he would consider measures.... I'm trying to use language that does not

get into discussing actual legislation. I'm asking the minister if he

would consider measures that would result in all existing written or

verbal deals being declared null and void. That's one very specific

question: would the minister consider reviewing the situation with a

view to rendering null and void all existing deals of the nature that I

have described? Secondly, no compensation would be payable as a result

of the nullification of such deals. Again, this is in recognition that

there are two....

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General was

talking to the Premier when I was making this point. It's in

recognition that there's an administrative remedy and there's a

political remedy already on the books. I've already gone on record as

saying I don't agree with the political remedy. But given that that is

the case, at the very least, in keeping with the Bar Association, I'm

asking the minister if he will carefully review having those deals made

null and void.

The second point that I want to raise has to

do with a point also made by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar

Association. A conservation officer, in order to begin an investigation

under the Waste Management Act, must present proof of identity before

he can begin the investigation. However, in many instances where an

investigation needs to get going very quickly, no one can be found to

present proof of identity to. That is also a problem.

[3:00]

A related problem is that the Waste Management Act forces conservation officers

acting under the act to rely on the Offence Act to obtain warrants. The Offence

Act requires that materials gained as evidence under a warrant have to be returned

within three months. The Canadian Bar Association is recommending that the warrant

provision be written into preferably the Waste Management Act, to provide for

warrants there, where there would not be the time-limit that is required under

the Offence Act, so that the evidence gleaned by conservation officers in an

investigation is evidence that they could hold on to for longer than three months.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I'm

trying to bunch all of my questions together because I don't want to

prolong this. There's something that I want to ask the minister to do

that I'm not asking him to do in the House today. But there is an

undertaking that I want to ask of the Attorney-General, and I put it in

this context. During discussion in the Ministry of Environment

estimates, the Minister of Environment and I agreed that Law Reform for Sustainable Development in B.C.

is a very valuable document that's worthy of careful consideration. I

certainly don't ask the minister to respond to everything that's in

that document, but I do want to ask the minister if he will undertake

to have his staff review all of the recommendations, in particular on

pages 218 to 229, and respond with his comments and recommendations.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Secondly — and I'm going to send over to the minister a copy of the index from this report — I

would ask him if he would also review similarly some other chapters

that are in this document on which I believe it would be beneficial to

have the perspective of law reform. Those chapters are the following:

"Alternative Dispute Resolution" on page 16; "Environmental Appeal

Board of British Columbia: Proposals for Reform" on page 67; "The Major

Project Review Process" on page 113 — and as an aside, we all know

that if we don't have an appropriate review process we could get bogged

down in the courts, and therefore it behooves the minister to look at

the review process from that perspective — "The Pesticide

Regulatory Process"; and, as I have just mentioned, "Waste Management

Act: Recommendations to Improve Enforcement."

So those last

two questions are just to ask the minister if he will undertake that

review, with the hope that the results will be made available to this

House and to the public.

HON. MR. SMITH :

I'll be happy to have the appropriate people in our ministry and in

other ministries — because some of the things you've raised are

well beyond my responsibility — examine it, and I myself will also

take a look at it.

I'm not quite sure what problem this

article is concerned with — if indeed it is in there —

regarding conservation officers' identities. But I'll have that looked

at as well.

You

asked me a question about the federal Fisheries Act. I'm not able to

deal with it because we don't prosecute federal fisheries issues at all.

You

asked me specifically, and I think it was in reference to some

arrangements that may have been entered into between Mr. Williston and

the current Minister of Energy when he was the Minister of Fisheries of

Canada. Mr. Williston hasn't been in this

[ Page 10740 ]

House since August 1972, so it would have been some time ago that he would have entered into...

MR. CASHORE : It might be 1971.

HON. MR. SMITH : ...the '71 arrangement. I must confess, I don't have any recollection of it, and I'm not sure I would be able to dig it out.

any event, I want to restate what I said today. Those so-called deals

have been raised as a defence in a couple of cases now, but the court

has not accepted them as a defence. That's the important thing.

Inventive counsel will raise whatever they think the court will accept,

and sometimes they raise something that they're not sure the court will

accept. But they still raise it, and the court does or doesn't accept

it. The important matter is that the court did not accept those deals

as a defence.

I consulted with the Minister of Environment

while you were asking me these questions, and he tells me, as he told

you in the House, that those kinds of deals aren't made. So that covers

the period of time that we're talking about, administratively. I'm not

responsible for administrative arrangements or for political

arrangements, as you said. I'm responsible for legal matters, and I can

tell you that deals aren't done in terms of the legal issues — if I'm understanding your question correctly.

You

asked me finally if I would entertain looking at fetching in a law or

an act or a bill or something that would eliminate or bring to an end

or deny or rescind any such deals that were made, and further to

prevent compensation if any was justifiable as a result of that denial.

Before I give you my answer, I would urge you to think through what

you're asking, because I really don't think in this day and age in this

chamber we would want such a blanket commitment to do something like

that. The answer, specifically to you — you, because I do not want

to get into a full-throated partisan rant on this issue, which I am

sorely tempted to do based on the question — is no, I would not

entertain doing that. It would be wrong to do that. I would not

entertain bringing in a law that would in some blanket way rescind

agreements of whatever kind entered into by private parties, one with

the other, and further bring in legislation that, in addition to that,

would prohibit them from getting compensation.

I think the

opposite is the way we go in this society. That's why we brought in

various legislation dealing with expropriation and all that kind of

stuff. As I say, I appreciate the sort of sentiment you're getting at

in terms of the administration of the law and the like, but what you're

asking to be done is extremely unwise and certainly inconsistent with

the philosophy that I live by and that this government supports. The

specific answer is no, I would not entertain doing that.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify a couple of things. The reason the

federal Fisheries Act is referenced is that conservation officers

operating under the Waste Management Act often, in carrying out their

work of prosecution, use the federal fisheries law. Therefore it's

people working under the aegis of the government of British Columbia

who often prosecute under a federal act.

With

regard to the

deal that I use as an example, I think the point we have to make there

is that people at an administrative level in the federal Ministry of

Environment wrote to the company after the court. The minister is not

entirely correct to say these deals have not influenced the court. The

fact is that the court used that deal to throw out a prosecution

against the Woodfibre pulp mill in either 1987 or 1988 — I think

it was 1988. That deal has been used in that way, so it's incorrect to

say that these deals have never been used.

the minister is saying that they are not being used anymore, that's

commendable, but no less a body than the lawyers who support the

Canadian Bar Association are making this recommendation, so if the

minister talks about going on a partisan rant, I'm sure he would agree

that the lawyers of the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch,

certainly represent a spectrum, and they could never be accused of

being partisan. They are simply making a practical suggestion, and that

is that all deals are off. The government has the power to do that.

The

bureaucrats, in the case of that federal fisheries dispute, had to

write to the company and say that in their opinion the deal was off,

but they did not have the power to nullify the deal in the sense that

the court would see it that way. It's something that I think the

Attorney-General should look at very carefully, given the extensive

research that's gone into these recommendations. It's going to be very

interesting to send the Attorney-General's comments to the Canadian Bar

Association and to receive their responses based on what the minister

said in the House today. I would encourage him to again answer in the

affirmative my request that his ministry would indeed review all of

these recommendations made by the Canadian Bar Association with a view

to something that the Minister of Environment and I have agreed on in

this House, and that is the importance of consistent, incremental and

appropriate law reform for environmental protection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

There have been defences raised on the issue you're talking about, and

in one instance at the lower court level it was looked upon with some

favour. Also, at the trial level — in part an appeal, in part de

novo — it was rejected. I send stuff — new legislation and

proposals for change in this ministry —

frequently to the Canadian Bar Association and others for consultation,

and all sorts of different views come back from the Canadian bar. I

tell you, Mr. Member, that to bring in legislation, to unilaterally

rescind deals entered into between private parties and representatives

of the Crown and to at the same time deny by legislation compensation

where it otherwise would be granted, yes, that is something the

Legislature has the power to do, but I can tell you, as the

Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia, that so long as I

serve there isn't

[ Page

10741 ]

a snowball's chance in Hades it will be done. It is

the antithesis of everything that I have ever understood and believed

in in my life.

I would not countenance the Legislature to

be used for the purpose of bringing in a bill to simply unilaterally

cancel or rescind arrangements that have been entered into. It's not

the right thing to do, and I wouldn't do it.

You may do it; that's fine. I wouldn't. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we proceed, the necessity for legislation is certainly not a matter for vote 12.

MR. JONES :

I appreciate that the House is anxious to move on to other

business, but there is one question I would like to ask the

Attorney-General before we do that.

I recall the

Attorney-General, when he sat in this corner of the House, being quite

a champion of freedom of information. He was quite an advocate and

enthusiast of that particular kind of legislation.

On May 5

last year I reminded the minister of his particular interest in that,

and he took the opportunity to demonstrate that he did understand

freedom of information legislation and the various aspects and the

importance of that legislation. He even indicated that one of the first

things he did upon assuming his cabinet position was to assign one of

his staff members to investigate such legislation.

His

excuses on May 5 of last year for not proceeding with that important

piece of legislation were that he had only been in the office ten

months and that he had other priorities — the Law Reform Commission and other important matters —

to take care of, and so, although freedom of information legislation

was very important, there wasn't enough time because of all these other

issues on the plate.

I read with some disappointment the

Attorney-General's response to my colleague's question yesterday with

respect to this issue. It was a very feeble response, given the kind of

remarks the Attorney General had made earlier.

[3:15]

question to the Attorney-General is: what happened to that champion?

What happened to that advocate, that enthusiast of open government and

freedom of information? What happened to that person who wanted the

Board of Internal Economy to open up its books and its meetings? What

happened to that very strong champion of freedom of information? What

caused the conversion on the road to Damascus?

Has the

Attorney-General now bought the government line; not that people have a

right to know, but that "the less they know, the less they know what

we're doing wrong"? That seems to be the line of government. What

happened to that former champion of freedom of information?

HON. MR. SMITH : Well, he's not a former champion at all. He's

still very much an enthusiast of it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

No, it's not just a matter of being slow. There are several models of

the way the matter can be handled. In fact, when you get into the

issue, you will find a couple of very important things which go in

tandem. One is access to information, and the other is protection of

privacy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

You say I didn't do this song and dance last year. No, I didn't do this

song and dance last year, for the reasons you said. I had been dealing

with the implementation of justice reform. I know what I said last

year, and I meant it. This year since then I have been dealing with,

among other things, this whole issue.

When you get to it — if you get to it in some meaningful way —

you will find that there is, running parallel, a need for access to

information by citizens. There is also an increasing need for the right

of citizens to know that information kept by central agencies is done

so with some assurance of privacy.

It is a difficult balancing act to get those things....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

You say: "Not for six other provinces." My friend, you would find, if

you actually looked at it, that indeed it is. The one that had the

greatest difficulty was the province of Manitoba with the NDP, who

brought it in and then spent two and a half years — after they

made a big falderal about bringing the legislation in — putting in

place the regulations, because they had extreme difficulty with it and

still do.

What

also happens when you bring it in that way, as we have found with some

of the federal legislation, is that not only does it work as a sword;

it works as a shield. We found that when we set up certain structures,

they exacerbated the problem of freedom of information and access to

information.

It is a very important issue. It has to be

dealt with properly, and it has to be dealt with in tandem. The privacy

side, I would suggest, is one that we should all be alert to, given the

extent to which computerization and so on is taking place. It is

phenomenal.

There are other areas that we are examining

with regard to openness and access to information. For instance, many

times we find — and you will probably find as well — what I

call "the Meech Lake syndrome." This is where you have a small number

of people, because of a law Mr. Trudeau's government brought in and the

constitutional changes that were wrought in 1982....

The House Leader for the NDP says he voted for it — and that's fair enough —

and, I think, probably in good faith. But it hasn't worked. One of the

issues we are examining.... I call it the Meech Lake syndrome, where

you get a small number of well-intentioned people working hard and

trying to do the best they can and, in fact, doing it. But because it

is in

[ Page 10742 ]

confidence, the public isn't brought along in a useful way.

Another

area where that happens, believe it or not, Mr. Member, is the public

sector labour negotiations. Very frequently what happens is that you

have a very large membership of people and a small number of

negotiators, both from the government side and the union side. One

thing we have to make certain of is that there is considerable

knowledge of the negotiating process and of the possibilities of doing

those negotiations in a public forum. That is another form of access to

information, and an extremely important one. We're looking at that, and

I would be interested to know — because it's not in your

bill — whether you yourself are of the view that we should include

that in the process you're talking about, because it is important.

would like you to reflect as well on the whole question of privacy,

because, my friend, I tell you it is a big problem and growing every

day. You can get psychological profiles on people today just like that

through the computerized access to information. It is a major problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Before we proceed with this, I am going to read from "Legislation Not

Proper Subject for Committee of Supply": "Only the administrative

action of a department is open to debate but the necessity for

legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in

Committee of Supply...." I inform all members that we are in Committee

of Supply. In my innocence, I allowed the question and answer of the

two preceding speakers to go forward, and the Chair is not prepared to

allow any more debate on this issue, which is out of order.

MR. JONES :

The question of privacy is clearly important. The minister has

indicated that he has read my private member's bill. He knows it's

there. Clearly what can be done in six other provinces, the federal

government and the American federal government can be done in British

Columbia if there were any political will. The minister has had two

years to do it. Why doesn't he just say it's not important to me

anymore? When I sat on this....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order!

If the member is going to stay within the rules of this assembly, he

can proceed; if not, he shall take his seat. Please proceed.

MR. JONES :

I want to raise one other point. I hadn't intended to, but I will,

seeing that the Attorney-General raised the question of Meech Lake.

When that debate was going on, a group of students from Thetford Mines

in Quebec was visiting Burnaby North Secondary School. I think we have

had a pretty general understanding in this House — I appreciate that the Premier is listening to this —

that we do recognize student groups when they appear in the galleries.

However, in one of the Attorney-General's snits on that day, when I had

my colleague who speaks French ask leave of this House to introduce

that group of Quebec students, at a very critical time in the events

leading up to the failure of Meech Lake, leave was not granted, because

one member did not allow it to happen. That was the Attorney-General.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The

Attorney-General expressed a lot of concern about Meech Lake, and he

attended Meech Lake, but when it came to introducing a group of French

students in this Legislature, the minister denied the opportunity. I

think it is shameful and that the minister should be ashamed for that

as well.

Vote 12 approved.

Vote 13: ministry operations, $228,336,673 — approved.

On vote 14: judiciary, $25,131,098.

HON. MR. SMITH :

There is just one matter I want to put on the record. The judiciary

deals with this, because it has to deal with all issues of information.

I was asked the question: why don't I say that access to information is

not important to me anymore? The reason I won't say that is because it

is.

Vote 14 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 37.

MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

AND IMMIGRATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

37, Ministry of International Business and Immigration Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I call Committee of Supply.

[ Page

10743 ]

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Chalmers in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

AND IMMIGRATION

On vote 41: minister's office, $331,900.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

It's my pleasure to present the estimates of the Ministry of

International Business and Immigration. Today I want to talk about

British Columbia in the context of a changing, dynamic world

marketplace. I want to review some of my ministry's accomplishments in

1989, and I want to tell you about some of the initiatives we're

planning for the future.

Mr. Chairman, 1989 was a good year

for British Columbia exports. The total British Columbia exports

reached $17.8 billion, which is a real increase of 2.2 percent over

1988. In fact, if it hadn't been for the profoundly negative effect of

the rising Canadian dollar, due very much to damaging federal fiscal

and monetary policies, we would have exceeded $18 billion worth of

exports by a large margin.

[3:30]

Throughout

the year, the Pacific Rim continued to rival the United States of

America as British Columbia's major export destination, even exceeding

the U.S. at several points during the year. Each of these very

important markets now takes about 40 percent of the province's total

exports.

Further

evidence of our success in diversifying

the province's export market lies in the significant increase of last

year for exports to the United States of apparel and clothing,

electrical machinery, equipment and bottled water, all despite the

higher Canadian dollar, and all despite — at some times during the

year — a 500-basis-point difference in interest rates.

Within

the Pacific Rim, Japan remains British Columbia's most important

trading partner. In 1989, B.C. exports to Japan reached almost $5.1

billion, an increase of 8.2 percent over the level of 1988. I might add

that in 1989 British Columbia supplied 58 percent of all Canada's

exports to Japan. Clearly, when one talks about Canada-Japan trade

relations, one is actually speaking about British Columbia–Japan trade

relations. Our softwood lumber exports to Japan were up a phenomenal 22

percent over last year, and pulp was up an impressive 19 percent.

Mr.

Chairman, 1989 was also a very good year for higher value-added

manufactured exports to Japan. Major increases were reported in British

Columbia's export of electronics, telecommunications equipment,

prefabricated buildings, aluminium wheel rims, bottled water and soft

drinks.

Other major markets for British Columbia in the Pacific Rim include Korea —

which is now British Columbia's fourth-largest export market after the United

States, Japan and the United Kingdom, Australia, Taiwan, the People's Republic

of China and Hong Kong.

British

Columbia exports to the European community, which accounted for about

15 percent of the total of British Columbia exports last year, showed a

very strong increase of 8.7 percent over last year, reaching $2.7

billion in 1989. I might add that on a percentage basis, British

Columbia exports more to the European community than any other province

of Canada.

With respect to the overall performance of

British Columbia's resource commodity exports, 1989 was a particularly

good year: softwood lumber exports up $130 million to $4 billion; pulp

up $309 million to $3.7 billion; coal up $56 million to $1.5 billion;

newsprint up $25 million to $968 million; and copper ores and

concentrates up $100 million to $843 million.

Looking

generally at our value-added manufactured exports, some of the most

significant export successes were: pulp and paper machinery up 46

percent to $48 million; clothing and apparel up 25 percent to $35

million; and processed agrifood products up 4 percent to $238 million.

far as the markets for these products are concerned, the United States

still takes about three quarters of all British Columbia's

higher-value-added manufactured exports. This contrasts sharply with

the more balanced three-way distribution in our natural resource

commodity exports, and it reinforces the importance of the Canada-U.S.

free trade agreement to the province's aspirations for a more

diversified value-added and knowledge-intensive export profile.

Turning

to the business immigration front during 1989, 253 immigrant investors

to British Columbia invested $87.4 million to create some 3,000 jobs in

this province. They also reported additional funds of $446 million. In

fact, British Columbia received the largest number of investor

immigrants to Canada, 43 percent of the total, with Quebec second and

Ontario third. During the same period, 686 entrepreneurial immigrants

destined for British Columbia reported a total of $1.3 billion. These

entrepreneurs are expected to create nearly 4,000 jobs in the province.

British Columbia's share of all Canadian visas issued to entrepreneurs

in 1989 was 24 percent, placing us behind Quebec but ahead of Ontario.

Some

of the projects initiated by business immigrants in British Columbia

include manufacturing of high-end ladies' fashions, exports to the New

York markets, the design and manufacture of specialized electronics for

international markets, food and beverage processing and

plastic-products manufacturing. Successful entrepreneurs bring their

expertise and capital to British Columbia and they help diversify the

economy and create new jobs.

The good news about what this

ministry accomplished last year isn't simply a matter of stats,

impressive as those stats may be. The true picture of what we have done

to help British Columbia in all parts of this province can be seen with

examples such as the opening of Raychem’s $2.5 million high-tech

machining centre in Richmond this March. This centre is a

California-based company, and it's their most advanced factory in that

particular division.

[ Page 10744 ]

Through

the hard work of my ministry and the Ministry of Regional and Economic

Development, Raychem brought its technology and its jobs here to

British Columbia.

In January of this year the Premier and I

led the British Columbia delegation of six business leaders to the

World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This was a follow-up to our

feature presentation in 1989, and I'm pleased to report that we made

many more business contacts.

Going back just a bit further,

in November last year we assisted the economic development commissions

of Kelowna, Penticton and West Kootenays in a three-day promotion in

Toronto. The promotion was designed to attract investment into these

regions, and the result was that about 150 contacts were followed and

about 10 percent of those contacts will be visiting the region in the

spring and summer to explore investment possibilities in those areas.

Another example: over 400 British Columbia companies took

part in the ministry's

free trade advisory seminars and workshops last year, learning how to take advantage

of export opportunities and how to meet new competitions from U.S. producers.

These seminars and workshops were so successful that they've been copied

by two other provinces.

You

may also remember the very successful Immigration Week that we

throughout the province were involved, and I for one was very proud to

help celebrate the positive contribution immigrants have made to

British Columbia.

This last year also saw the opening of

two B.C. foreign offices in our high priority markets. Singapore

officially opened in April of 1989, and Munich was officially opened by

the Premier and myself in November.

In addition to our

achievements on the investment and immigration fronts, we've been

building up an impressive list of success stories with our British

Columbia exporters. When I talk of exporters, I'm talking about the

hard work of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, which was

established only in June of last year. With its solid, focused

programs, B.C. Trade has aggressively taken hold of its mandate to

promote the export of British Columbia goods and services and to

increase the number of British Columbia exporters.

So far,

under our new export loan guarantee program, we've helped eight

companies obtain pre-shipment finance for exporting their goods and

services— financing they would not have been able to get under any

other circumstances. We have assisted companies such as Snowcap Waters

at Fanny Bay on Vancouver Island; Norsat International, for the export

of satellite receivers; North American Gantry and Equipment Servicing

Co., for the export of revolutionary new ship-loading equipment. This

has helped secure export sales of over $21 million and has established

168 new jobs here in British Columbia, where we need them.

We're

actively promoting British Columbia companies and trade activities

here, as well as around the world. To quote just three of the many

examples, this March we brought together 29 British Columbia companies

and 13 government ministries in a major B.C. contingent at the Globe

'90 trade show. In November last year B.C. Trade gave support to five

companies at the World Fashion Fair in Osaka, Japan. Sample orders

worth $100,000 were sold, and the prospects are for up to $5 million

sales in the next 12 months. Just one month later, in December, B.C.

Trade led a mission of four software companies, plus a representative

of Software B.C., to a major electronics and software show in Singapore

— Informatics '89. And in addition to the $30,000 of immediate sales

the company has reported, sales over the next year are expected to add

as much as $2 million in that sector to the B.C. economy.

other fronts, together with the consulting engineers of British

Columbia, we retained the services of a consultant in Manila to help

British Columbia companies win contracts with the Asian Development

Bank — a good relationship of a Crown corporation working with the private sector.

The

B.C. Film Commission has been instrumental in attracting new

productions to the province, including feature miniseries and a new

19-episode television series. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the film

industry netted to British Columbia over $200 million last year. When

you consider the growth in that industry.... I became involved in it

indirectly about 11 years ago. It has grown from a $10 million industry

11 years ago to one of over $200 million here in British Columbia. I

have been told by individuals in the guilds and unions, who, by the

way, cooperate very well with government, the industries and the film

crews, that it could be a billion-dollar industry in British Columbia

in five years' time.

In cooperation with a group of 135

B.C. companies, we've established BID B.C., an ambitious new program to

win procurement contracts from the Canadian government. I must say that

this has been a very successful brainchild of my deputy Mr. Lorne

Seitz, who is seated with me here today.

Throughout the

province, in companies and chambers of commerce, we have connected to

export and procurement information through our expanded British

Columbia Business Network. The number of direct BCBN users rose from

200 in January 1989 to almost 1,000 in March this year. We're expanding

the network all the time with new international links and databases,

such as stats from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and

government tender information from all four western provinces.

our assistance to exporting companies, we're keeping our eyes on the

long-term and newly emerging markets. We're starting up new targeted

marketing initiatives, multi-year projects aimed at opening up new

markets for British Columbia products all over the world — for

example, turnkey sawmill packages to eastern Europe and environmental

management service to Taiwan. British Columbia Trade was successfully

delivering to the B.C. exporter what was promised when we established

the corporation last year. Every service, from marketing to training to

[ Page

10745 ]

access to information, is made available to exporters throughout British Columbia by B.C. Trade.

the coming year we will focus our efforts on attracting increasing

equity investments in the province and increasing the number of

entrepreneurial immigrants who build a solid foundation — I must underscore those who build a solid foundation —

for new trade and investment and who expand exports of our goods and

services, with particular emphasis on the promotion of value-added

products.

I'd like to tell you about a number of

initiatives and trade activities planned by the ministry and B.C.

Trade. On the ministry side, we will develop in the international

investment community greater awareness of British Columbia as an

attractive investment destination, a first-class location in which to

do business and to invest. To do this we will organize a series of six

out-of-province investment missions to countries in Asia and Europe, as

well as to the United States of America, particularly California.

Recognizing

the importance of integration to the ministry and to the economic

growth of this province, the ministry will ensure that the province's

share of business immigrants to Canada is at least maintained or

increased, as this province desires.

[3:45]

the ministry responsible for trade policy in the province, we will

develop policies and strategies relating to international trade

agreements, negotiations and trade actions that reflect the needs of

exporting companies in British Columbia.

We will monitor

and promote, at the provincial level, the Vancouver International

Airport expansion and the construction of the third runway.

The

ministry will continue to provide funding for the Vancouver

international financial centre — which, by the way, is way ahead

of Montreal; it is now the largest international financial centre in

Canada — and the International Commercial Arbitration Centre,

while promoting greater private sector participation in their

operations.

Mr.

Chairman, the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation will begin

its second year of operation and continue working mainly with small and

medium-sized companies to increase their export sales and to make them

aware of export possibilities Priority marketing activities have

already been planned for a number of key industry sectors.

the food sector, an innovative grocery-marketing entry program is

planned for the United States, Asia and Europe to increase the number

of British Columbia products in stores in these regions. It is already

quite successful. Efforts to promote seafood products will come about

in cooperation with the various groups in the seafood and aquaculture

sectors.

In the film sector, missions to Japan and Hong

Kong will be organized to increase production opportunities and to

diversify the province's dependence on the important California

industry.

An ambitious program to increase exports of sawmilling equipment to a number

of foreign buyers will take place in the coming year.

Recognizing

the importance of research and development in the province, British

Columbia Trade will assist companies in such high-technology sectors as

aerospace, subsea and telecommunications with marketing assistance and

funding for participation at events planned in these sectors — and we're doing very, very well indeed in these sectors.

the natural resource sector, the corporation will participate in a

number of initiatives designed to increase value-added exports. For

example, we will provide a significant amount of money to increase

value-added wood exports.

As a follow-up to the highly

successful Globe '90 exposition on the environment held in Vancouver

this March, missions to a number of countries will be organized to

promote the products and services of the province's environmental

companies in international markets around the world, specifically in

the former eastern bloc areas.

A concentrated effort to

increase British Columbia's share of federal government procurement

contracts is being undertaken, with a series of seminars to be arranged

on procurement opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, these are only

a few of the activities which the ministry and B.C. Trade will

undertake in the coming year. As you can readily see, we want to be

targeted in our approach and, most significantly, to produce results

for those we are assisting throughout all of the communities across the

province of British Columbia.

MR. GABELMANN : Before

I proceed to deal with a number of issues with the minister, the member

for Kootenay wanted to raise a particular point, and to convenience

her, I think it might be easier to do that at this stage.

MS. EDWARDS :

I would like to bring to the minister's attention the B.C. Trade

Development Corporation's recent Partners in Export seminar in my home

city of Cranbrook. I believe that was advertised fairly broadly

throughout the area. I wonder if the minister would confirm that yes,

it was broadly advertised by the Trade Development Corporation, that

that was the part the Trade Development Corporation took in that — and that the minister spoke.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Yes, as a matter of fact, we held an all-day seminar in Cranbrook. I

made a speech that day to the chamber of commerce, which was televised.

The newspaper in Cranbrook — one of the dailies — picked up

one story one day and another story the following day. We had well over

100 people out for the luncheon, and the seminar was very well

attended. I have had several letters from participants in the seminar

who feel it has helped them to expand the export potential they

have — and some of them didn't even know they had export

opportunities to expand. It was well advertised. Constructive notice

and more was given to anybody who cared to attend the seminar or,

indeed, the chamber luncheon held that day.

[ Page 10746 ]

MS. EDWARDS :

I wonder if the minister would tell me if he was aware, at the time he

was in Cranbrook for this seminar as the guest speaker, who the MLA was

for the area.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes, I'm very much

aware of who the MLA for the area is, and it is not up to me to tell

MLAs what their duties are. But as you pointed out, you were very much

aware.... At least, constructive notice through advertising — notice in the newspapers —

was given to everyone. Surprisingly enough, I didn't see the member for

Kootenay at any of those seminars, nor indeed, did I note the

member.... She may have been there, but I didn't note her at the

luncheon where the speaker gave a very interesting and informative

speech — a rather lengthy one, I was told. But I didn't notice the

member there. If I had noticed the member there, I certainly would have

recognized her. If she was there, please accept my apologies for not

doing so.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Chairman, I hope the

minister is not anticipating defence over this. No, I was not at the

seminar. My assistant attended in order to be sure that we knew what

information was there. The minister has just said the advertising was

extended broadly throughout the area, and it described who the sponsors

of the seminar were, including the Trade Development Corporation, the

Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce, who was managing it, and the chambers of

commerce from Fernie, Elkford and Sparwood. According to the ad that

went out, it was offered in cooperation with, "your local MLA, Duane

Crandall." I think that if the minister didn't know who the MLA was,

perhaps his ministry should have known.

I think the

minister might offer an explanation as to why he has allowed this kind

of blatant and deliberate misrepresentation of the MLA for the area. I

think the minister owes an explanation for the broadcast information

which was not true.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Chairman,

mea culpa. I have sinned. I will take responsibility for that. The

MLA’s name should have been correctly noted. Nonetheless, it was a most

successful affair, and obviously your assistant picked up on it. I

thank you for bringing this grievous error to my attention. I will

assure you that it doesn't happen again.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister might have any explanation as to why he made this grievous error?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The answer is that I didn't check the copy closely enough to ensure

that the hon. member — whose name I can't mention in the

House —

who is currently the member for Kootenay was included. Had we just said

"your MLA," it probably would have sufficed. I'm sorry. There was an

error there. As I say, I have sinned.

But it was a very

successful deal and a successful day. It was successful on behalf of

your constituents who will be able to increase their business in that

area, to diversify the economy in the Kootenay area and to keep sending

whoever the MLA is from that area to Victoria and continue to pay their

salary. Mea culpa. I have sinned. I promise not to do that again.

MS. EDWARDS :

It's very nice for the minister to say that he has sinned, but

obviously he didn't place the ad, he didn't write the copy and he

didn't approve it when it was there. He didn't proofread it. He was not

the only one in the ministry who was doing this kind of thing. I will

give the minister this: it's very difficult to know for whom the member

for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) sits. But given that, I think the

minister should have known who the local member for the Kootenay riding

was, and I do not accept that as a kind of apology. I believe it's

unacceptable.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I'll tell you what

we'll do as a bit of quid pro quo here. When we hold a function in

Columbia River, I'll ask the member for Columbia River to invite you,

and then everything will be all square. How's that?

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin this afternoon's discussions on the

minister's estimates by talking about some trade issues and the

government strategy in respect to those trade issues. To put it into

context, clearly what's happening while the Uruguay round discussions

continue — as best they continue in their struggling way —

and as the GATT nations try to find a way to reduce tariffs, at the

same time there is an increasing development of freer trading blocs.

Obviously the European bloc will come on stream in 1992; there is the

apparent desire to develop a bloc in the North American economy. There

are clear indications that additional blocs may well be — at some stage down the road —

created in Asia, and no doubt various countries who are now not

involved in those kind of discussions will be seeking to become

involved.

The fear that many of us have about all of this

is that it will decrease the emphasis on GATT, on the Uruguay round and

on the succeeding rounds after this one and possibly lead to the

situation where the world is divided into three, four or five major

trading blocs competing vigorously each with the other.

Recognizing

that this is a federal responsibility in the final analysis, but

understanding that the provinces have a fair amount of say in helping

to develop federal trade policy, I wonder if the minister could give us

some indication of the province's advice to Ottawa on this matter; what

the provincial cabinet policy is; what the strategy is for British

Columbia in respect of these two very different trends that are

presenting themselves now in the world. What's the B.C. attitude to

this?

HON. MR. VEITCH : I want to thank the hon. member for North Island for a very vital and very cogent question at this point in time.

[ Page

10747 ]

As the member is aware, provincial governments all across Canada,

and indeed states throughout Australia, are becoming more and more

involved in international trade and international matters. More and

more there are direct relationships, direct meetings and direct

involvement between those provinces and the various states, countries

and companies involved throughout the world.

I believe that

British Columbia interests are best protected by British Columbians,

and that's precisely what we.... We realize the importance of the

Uruguay round of talks, and we realize the importance of a big result,

as they point out, because trade barriers certainly are coming down all

around the world.

[4:00]

I believe

multinational trade conclusions are vital to British Columbia

interests. With that in mind, not long ago I spent a couple of days in

Brussels talking with the people from the European community. One of

the reasons I wanted to be there, as I mentioned during my opening

remarks, is that on a percentage basis British Columbia is the largest

exporter into Europe of any province in Canada.

I wanted to make sure, when the standards are set in 1992, when all of the walls come tumbling down — not

when the process ends, but when the process starts, this whole process

of coming together that started right after the Second World War....

It's important that the standards for things that British Columbia

ships be the standards that Europe accepts. We were very successful in

those areas.

We're

talking in areas right now: plywood — the largest export of

plywood into the European community — dimensional lumber,

value-added products, canned fish products and a whole host of other

things we are becoming involved in.

well, I spent a couple of days in Geneva with various officials, right

from the most senior officials down the list, talking about the Uruguay

round of GATT talks which are concluding this fall. I guess early in

December the results should be in. I think it is in the best interests

of British Columbia that there be a big result, a good result, flowing

from that.

You

are quite correct when you say that the world is breaking down into

trading blocs. That's why — whether or not you like the free trade

agreement that was signed by the United States of America and

Canada —

it's important to British Columbia that we make our trading arrangement

work north and south. It is important also that we retain a significant

degree of independence and that we also do the things that are

necessary so we can become involved in those other trading blocs as

they open up around the world.

That is precisely what we are doing through our 11 offices and commissions

around the world. That is precisely the posture that British Columbia is taking.

We realize that we can't take a scatter-gun approach; we must target. And

we can't do it all ourselves either. We have to rely to a large extent upon

It's

the government of British Columbia's position to be into areas where we

have a significant advantage in products that we ship — even in some

areas like subsidies, where we have absolute advantage, and even in

areas where we have comparative advantage. But we must target, and we

can't be all things to all people.

expect good results in November. One item that may not have a good

result, and that may prevent a big result — as they say in the

GATT talks —

is the problems with agricultural subsidies around the world, a lot of

which emanate from Europe. That could put a damper on the whole thing.

British

Columbia intends to be there. Not only do we intend to be there in the

markets we've established now, but we've recently opened a new office

in Munich, and we're targeting some special areas in the former eastern

bloc. We're doing some business, and we've had some success —

which I'd be pleased to tell you about later if you wish — in the

Soviet Union as well.

MR. GABELMANN :

I wonder if the minister would care to share the government's strategy

in respect of the very early discussions going on with Mexico, given

the federal minister's comments that discussions and negotiations are

in place with provinces.

HON. MR. VEITCH : From

British Columbia's perspective, what we want to do is look closely at

the implications of any new free trade in North America before taking a

real position on it. We want to ensure that we at least have all the

mechanics in place to attain the best possible results from the

Canada-U.S. free trade agreement before becoming immersed in any

agreement with Mexico or anyplace else in North America.

are monitoring it very closely. I've personally talked with Mr. Crosbie

about it. We have officials in Ottawa on a constant basis. We're still

in the process, as you are well aware, of adjusting to the Canada-U.S.

free trade agreement, so it's important that gains achieved under the

FTA not be undercut by any free trade agreement with Mexico.

It's

important to us that we have our say at the table with the federal

government, and we've expressed that in the strongest terms. We have

negotiations going on right now — in fact, some draft resolutions

are being prepared on the whole issue of the FTA; I obviously can't

discuss them with the member at the present time, but I'd be prepared

to share them with him after they have been concluded — so that we

make sure that this province has a good spot at the bargaining table in

any negotiations that may possibly affect the province of British

Columbia.

As I said before, in addition to the phase-in of

the free trade agreement, we are nearing the conclusion of the Uruguay

round of multilateral trade negotiations. As you pointed out so

correctly, that's also going to affect not only Canada but the United

States. We must monitor and work very closely in all of those areas; in

fact, we need to be on the scene as

[ Page 10748 ]

much

as possible. We're in constant discussion about any participation

Canada may have with the United States with regard to any new free

trade agreements in North America.

a nutshell, we want to ensure that we get the free trade agreement

between these two countries as best we can — or at least that we

have as many things ironed out as we can — before Canada or

anybody else becomes too immersed in another free trade agreement in

the North American hemisphere.

MR. GABELMANN :

Given the speed with which these things sometimes develop, and given

the fact that the province needs to develop a position, a strategy and

maybe a defence, I wonder if the minister can tell the House what

public involvement there will be in designing a British Columbia

strategy on this.

I ask that question given the experience

we've had with the free trade agreement, where the public was not

involved in any way. The people who depend on industrial and other jobs

in this province, and who may well have those jobs threatened by future

trade agreements, haven't had an opportunity to be involved in the

past. Does the minister have an advisory council of some kind or a

process in place by which he seeks public involvement not only from the

business community, which is well represented on the board of the Trade

Development Corporation, but from the trade union movement and other

areas of British Columbia which might not be represented through those

organizations?

HON. MR. VEITCH : I guess I'm

answering the hon. member's last question first. If he has people he

would like to have on the B.C. Trade Development Corporation as

directors, please forward their names to me. The directors change from

time to time, and we're looking for broad representation from all

sectors across the province.

far as involvement with the free trade agreement is concerned, I made

it very clear, as have some other provinces — without going into

any confidentialities or negotiations that are presently

underway — to

Mr. Crosbie, my counterpart in Ottawa, that even though Ottawa

constitutionally has paramountcy as far as international trade is

concerned, things have changed. The FTA between Canada and the United

States of America has introduced a completely new dimension to trade

between these two countries. As you pointed out quite correctly in your

opening statements, it is introducing new dimensions, new alliances,

all around the world. The provinces, then, are having a larger say all

around the world. We have, as I pointed out, offices in 11 areas.

Even

though we recognize the paramountcy the federal government has, the

government of British Columbia and other governments in Canada that

have strong interests must be represented at those bargaining tables

when the provincial interests come into play — specifically when

British Columbia's interests come into play. I can assure you that

we're not going to give up on negotiations in Ottawa until we do have

our full say at the bargaining table, whether that comes to areas of

dispute under the free trade agreement or to new agreements that may

affect Canada as it relates to other provinces.

That's the

first step we must take. We must have the federal government understand

that we are a federation. We're a federation of provinces throughout

the country — I guess that's what Meech Lake was all about —

with equal rights, and "equal rights" means that we have to have equal

rights in protecting our citizens, protecting our business and

protecting our jobs here in British Columbia. And we need to be at the

table sometimes before some of these incidents blossom into

full-fledged disputes.

think that's the first phase before we talk about any process of public

involvement. First the provinces — this province in particular;

I'm not going to speak for any other province —

must be there and be there in good force whenever our interests are not

only threatened but in any way impinged upon or whenever there is an

issue arising that's of any significance at all to British Columbia.

That's the first stage in the process, and we are negotiating toward that end: a successful conclusion, I hope soon.

MR. GABELMANN :

I don't want to get into a debate about all of those issues, and I

don't want to get into a debate about history here either, but British

Columbia missed the boat when it came to the fisheries component in the

FTA. We were not in the discussions. The maritime provinces were; we

were not.

Though

I don't think that free trade with Mexico is imminent by any

means — I think the problems are virtually insurmountable, given

the total differences in our respective economies — nonetheless

one has to be on guard in this country. I just hope — I say this

now and then will leave it — that

the ministry and the government are well prepared and do not allow to

happen again what has happened with the impact of the FTA on the

fishery.

I want to move to another issue. The Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has been quoted earlier this year as

keenly looking for a free trade agreement with Japan. This is not in

quotes, but the story says that despite his unconcealed enthusiasm for

a deal with Japan, the minister admits little success in selling the

idea. How has his success been in selling the idea to the government of

British Columbia?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Well, you are asking all sorts of questions which would verge on being rhetorical.

[4:15]

are in the same position as we would be in with any free trade

agreement with any other block, whether it be with another block within

North America or, indeed, in Asia. We want to examine all aspects of

any agreement that might arise with Japan. I also want to assure the

hon. member that we want to make this agreement work first.

But having said that, barriers are coining down all around the world. We just can't hold back the tide.

[ Page

10749 ]

They're coming down in eastern Europe; there will

be a whole new alliance. I guess an agreement that started really after

the First World War with very few members now includes 12 member

countries.

Then

we have the EFTA as another grouping, a

European free trade alliance around the European Community. We can't

hold back the tide of change, so international barriers with respect to

trade — and that's a movement of intellectual properties, goods,

services and in some cases personnel — is something we cannot hold

back.

But we are saying that wherever Canada enters into an agreement — realizing that Canada has paramountcy in free trade — as

I pointed out in my opening remarks.... When you talk about

Canada-Japan trade, you are really talking about B.C.-Japan trade,

because we export 58 percent of all the products that Canada exports to

Japan. We want to be at that table, we're going to be at that table and

we're going to be involved in a very meaningful way if and when any

discussions on any agreement with any other country, particularly

Japan, come into play.

MR. GABELMANN : I can assure

the minister that it was not a rhetorical question. When the Minister

of Finance, who is presumably the second most important member of

cabinet — at least on some lists — says that he is interested

in pursuing a free trade deal with Japan, I take it seriously. Maybe I

shouldn't. Maybe the question was rhetorical and I shouldn't have taken

the Minister of Finance seriously. That seems to be a more popular

thing to do in this province.

But it is a serious question,

because the next question relates to the whole initiative that has come

out of New Zealand over the past few years and also out of Australia to

develop a free trade, given the closer economic relations between

Australia and New Zealand, their desire to expand their trading blocs,

their uncertainty about doing that in South-East Asia and their desire

to move to North America and to link in with us and as a result with

the United States.

We're

probably looking at a more serious initiative there, at least on the

part of the New Zealanders — and I expect increasingly on the part

of the Australians —

to try to develop some kind of free trade agreement with Canada. That

clearly would impact more on British Columbia than on most of the rest

of the country.

Rather than just asking for the minister's

response at this point, let me complete my thoughts and the concern

that I think British Columbians should have about this. There are

initiatives clearly going on in Mexico; we've done it with the U.S.

There's talk about Japan, and there are initiatives in respect of the

ANZUS countries. If those efforts are encouraged or lead to a

pan-Pacific free trade area, the inevitable result, at least in the

short term — and by short term mean the next few decades — is an impact on our access to the European free trade area.

I think what will happen — and I'd be interested in the minister's

response on this — is that increasingly these blocs, once they are relatively

self-sufficient each within itself, will begin to erect tariff barriers anew

to protect themselves. We will be in a world where tariff barriers will not

be going down, as has been the whole emphasis of the multilateral trade negotiations

under GATT. But we will be getting back into areas — maybe not smaller countries

anymore but bigger trading blocs — which will go back into the whole protectionist

era.

expressed the concern last year in these estimates to the former

minister that while we're riding both horses — the free trade bloc

horse and the MTN horse — we

need to recognize that in the long term those are going to be up

against each other. We may well face some serious difficulties. If

we're going to be relying on Europe and don't have access to Europe

because we have put all of our eggs in the pan-Pacific free trade

basket, we've got some problems.

I'm not predicting dire

consequences; I'm not predicting anything. All I'm saying in all of

this is that the really important agenda in my view — and I may not have everyone's support on this — is

the GATT process, the MTN and the successful discussions with the

Uruguay round. I know the agricultural barriers are the most difficult

of all because of the social place that agriculture has in most

countries in terms of the family farm, etc. We'll talk about some of

those issues a bit later.

I just want to emphasize that,

from my perspective at least, we need to be very careful not to let the

MTN go. We need to be sure that it's the priority rather than the

Minister of Finance's musings or the federal Minister of Trade's

musings about Mexico or whatever else. Those things may be good in

their time and in their place, but in the meantime the priority has to

be the GAIT discussions. Do you agree?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Thank you very much for the very reasoned debate and statement from the

critic. I agree. I couldn't agree more that the current round of

negotiations of GATT are vitally important. As a matter of fact, when I

was in Geneva, it was very important for me to draw out as many

ambassadors to GATT from as many of those countries as I possibly

could. I talked with, in separate sessions.... In fact, I even had

dinner, which lasted longer than I wanted it to, with the ambassador to

GATT from New Zealand.

It may be of interest to the hon.

member for North Island that Australia and New Zealand have agreed to

put off any negotiations that they may have with respect to an

Australia–New Zealand free trade agreement until after the Uruguay

round of talks are concluded and all of the results are in and

evaluated. The ambassador himself told me that in Geneva, and I respect

what he's told me. It was backed up as well by the Australian

Ambassador.

We want closer relations with Japan. Right now

Japan is our second-largest trading partner, and conceivably, in just a

few years' time if things continue as they are, it could become the

largest trading partner for British Columbia. I had a group of Japanese

individuals in my office today. I meet almost

[ Page 10750 ]

once a week with individuals from Japan. We are monitoring the happenings around the world.

the way, when I was in Geneva, I also met with the Korean Ambassador to

the GATT and asked him the very same questions. I asked him where his

alliances were going and drew out as much information as we possibly

could.

The federal government, of course, must take the

lead in any free trade agreement that one might have with any other

country, and it might do it at a province's urging — whether it be

Japan, any other country or any other bloc. Neither my officials nor I

have heard mention of any interest in Ottawa in any of the constant

snooping, phone calling and so forth that we try to do with all of the

contacts. I must admit that some of my contacts are diminishing in

Ottawa.

B.C. House in Ottawa is continually on this issue,

with its ear to the ground, trying to find out what is happening in any

of these areas. I haven't heard mention of any agreement with Japan. I

believe we've got to make the agreements that we have work first. We

have to monitor very closely what is happening around the world. We

have to make this agreement work first, but we also have to realize

that trade barriers — and I'm sure the hon. member will not disagree with me —

are coming down all around the world. We're watching very closely the

development of the Asia-Pacific economic cooperation initiative that

was inspired by Prime Minister Hawke of Australia. In this whole thing,

Japan is still central to that particular issue. Japan is involved in

that issue.

We all agree that the MTN must succeed first.

The importance must be there. If it doesn't succeed, I think it will be

bad for all of us. We are very closely involved in this process. We

have not a large group, but a very well trained group of officials that

is involved in watching this on a constant basis and indeed, I am

informed, on a weekly and sometimes daily basis.

We are

having a meeting of the APEC trade ministers in Vancouver in September

this year, and my ministry and I will be actively involved in that

process.

I couldn't agree more with the hon. member that

the Uruguay round must conclude and that we must monitor the results.

Let's all hope for a big result, as they say, from this current round,

and we'll take it from there.

MR. GABELMANN : Leave that for the time being

want to talk a little about Asia, South-East Asia, the trade offices

and a few impressions that I picked up on a self-paid visit to

South-East Asia this winter to learn a little bit about this area.

Before

I do, I want to have clarified again the status of the Taiwan office.

The reason I'd like that is because in the last year I have had three

different answers about the status of that office: one answer in the

estimates last year from the previous minister; another answer when I

was in the Singapore-B.C. trade office; and yet another answer when I

was in the Hong Kong office. I didn't go to Taiwan, and I have no

intention of going to Taiwan until some things get sorted out in that

part of the world.

I want to ask the minister if he can

give the House a brief status report about the operation of that

office. There are reports now that the trade corps, in fact,

administers the office and not the chamber of commerce anymore. One of

your offices, in fact, told me it was the ministry directly. I'm just

curious to see what you have to say.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Well, you're sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition, who's a

lawyer and accustomed to certain veils that are sometimes

necessary — some in marriage, some in companies, and some in

certain other circumstances. Canada doesn't have diplomatic relations

with the Republic of China — with Taiwan, if you will — but

it's one of our large customers, and we must do business with them. The

Canadian government has an arrangement — you'd have to ask them

what the arrangement is —

with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. My deputy wouldn't know anything

about that at all, of course. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has an

office in Taiwan, and works in the best interests, we hope, of those

who are involved in commerce in Canada.

We have a

corporation known as the British Columbia Trade Development

Corporation, which has an office in Taipei, and is involved in

representing the commercial interests of the Trade Development

Corporation, which happen to be the commercial interests of the

province of British Columbia. I don't know if I have sufficiently

veiled this for the hon. member, but the Trade Development Corporation

has an office in Taipei. And of course, the British Columbia Trade

Development Corporation has a very great interest in trade between

Taiwan and British Columbia, as does the Ministry of International

Business and Immigration. So we're involved on a consultative basis all

the time.

[4:30]

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Minister, you probably appreciate that over the last three and a

half years the New Democrat opposition has been supportive of the B.C.

Trade Development Corporation. We've been supportive of the trade

initiatives and trade missions to Davos and to the Asia-Pacific. If

we've been asked by the media or others about junkets, we've said no,

they're worthwhile investments. Our feeling is that the province of

British Columbia depends more on trade than any other province. It's a

trading province and has been for a long time. So the approach that we

have taken is that the province of British Columbia should be

aggressive; it should go for the opportunities when they're there.

You'll recall my questions to your predecessor, when I asked about

increased resources in the Asia-Pacific in particular, and in the

People's Republic of China, Thailand and India, where I didn't think we

had sufficient resources to take advantage of those three very large

players.

This year my question is slightly different.

Interjection.

[ Page

10751 ]

MR. HARCOURT : Well, I just say that we have Dickson Hall, who

is a very good representative. I met him when I was on my seven or

eight trade missions to Hong Kong and into the People's Republic of

China. We've got good Canadian staff. They've upped the quality of the

people in the Canadian embassies throughout Asia, in Singapore and

Thailand — very good representation. But the B.C. presence wasn't as

sustained as that of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan to a

certain extent. So I had those concerns. I know there have been some

initiatives in that area.

guess my point today is on

Taiwan, the Republic of China. It seems, Mr. Minister, that we are far

more tentative in Canada and British Columbia about our relationship

with Taiwan than the People's Republic of China are. The People's

Republic of China are massively involved in trade with the Republic of

China, directly and indirectly. Isn't it time that the government of

Canada and the province of British Columbia had a fresh appraisal of

our relationship with Taiwan, given the changed circumstances in the

People's Republic of China — and, indeed, in many other nations of

the world who have taken similar diplomatic positions to what we have

in the past?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The statement that we are a trading province is quite correct. We have

a budget which we've introduced in this House of — what is

it? —

$15.3 billion. We have a province with a population of a little over

three million. Neither you nor I would have to be much of a

mathematician to figure out that we have to sell something to somebody

else or we don't live very well in this province. So we did that. We

sold just about $18 billion worth of goods and services out of this

province last year. We would have done a heck of a lot better if Ottawa

had had some sensible monetary and interest policies in place and

hadn't kept pushing us.

I know this isn't answering your

question, but I'll go ahead; I think it's important. We believe that

for every point the dollar is artificially raised — and it's about

10 points now —

it amounts to about $1.3 billion worth of lost opportunities. We don't

think that's any way for a trading country to operate. There has to be

something wrong in the system. Even Ottawa ought to be able to see

that, as far away as they are — 3,000 or 30,000 miles, whatever it

is, over the mountains. I think you and I would agree on that issue.

If you're asking for an opinion as to the reappraisal that the government

of Canada ought to have in its relationships with the People's Republic

of China and the Republic of China, or Taiwan — however they prefer to address

it — we have thought for a long time that you can't completely blind yourself

and say that there isn't a large trading entity there in Taiwan. The United

States has a different policy, and it seems to work out very well for them.

I predict personally that the barriers.... As you correctly pointed out, the

Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have almost an open

trading situation; they trade back and forth. I guess the only thing that doesn't

move back and forth across the borders, across the sea, is manpower, or personpower.

think that you'll find the same sorts of things happening that are

happening in Europe, and you'll see some of those barriers come

tumbling down, perhaps in the not too distant future; in my opinion,

the sooner the better. It will give the people of Taiwan a better

chance to do a lot of things and a better chance to focus as far as

trade is concerned. It may even help them with some of their pollution

problems as they regard other opportunities.

Any

would open up trading opportunities in China — even though it

doesn't have the Republic of China's large net disposable income, as

you point out so well —

would be in the best interests of British Columbia, and what is in the

best interests of British Columbia is in the best interests of Canada.

That's the approach we have taken. As I say, through the Trade

Development Corporation we have established an office in Taipei. It has

been expanded. We're doing more and more business with the People's

Republic of China.

As I said, we have to target. We just

recently opened a new office in Munich because of the opportunities in

Europe —

southern Europe, the new eastern bloc nations, the changes in the GDR.

We have to evaluate where we're at before we open any offices with

respect to the People's Republic of China. We could easily get lost in

that situation. We're probably better off at the present time to

operate out of Tokyo and Hong Kong with — as you point out so

well — the staff that we have and depend to some degree on the

Canadian embassy and consuls in the People's Republic of China.

I think that Canada should realize the realities of a changing world as

far as Asia is concerned? I think they should. I believe that those

situations will change just as they've changed in Europe. I don't have

enough of a crystal ball to tell you when that will happen, but I

believe, as you do, that those things will occur not too far in the

future.

MR. GABELMANN :

Do the trade offices and the trade officers have a written mandate, a

policy directive or a mission statement — whatever you might call

it — in

respect of what their purpose and objectives are and what their mandate

is from day to day? I wonder if the minister would briefly give us a

sense of what that mandate actually is.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

As a matter of fact, not too long I asked my deputy to start

re-evaluating all of the opportunities we have in all of our trade

offices, taking a look at the mandates we've given to each and every

one of them. We're doing that now. We're evaluating the value in each

office to each part of the world — whether we're located at

exactly the right spot, whether we should move to a different part of

Tokyo or Japan, or whatever we should be doing.

[ Page 10752 ]

We're

evaluating all those things now, and we do have a mandate which must

vary slightly from country to country, as you realize. There have to be

codicils that will allow that to happen, but essentially the

offices — although each operates in a unique business environment —

have all focused their activities on four general areas: corporate

investment, business information, trade promotion and promotion of

British Columbia. The latter includes tourism and also education

opportunities.

More

specific services provided by the international offices include —

without giving you the rule book on the issue, which includes a lot of

things — identifying

prospective investors and attracting them to British Columbia; matching

and identifying market opportunities and distribution channels;

providing specific information on trade, investment and business

immigration, and other types of immigration and what is happening in

the Canadian embassies around the world; facilitating business

meetings; visiting business people. As the Leader of the Opposition

pointed out, he was well received in Hong Kong, and if he returns there

or goes to any other place, he'll be well received there — we'll

ensure that that happens. They visit government representatives to the

region as well; facilitate and coordinate provincial activities and

programs in the region with the Canadian trade offices or embassies or

whatever it happens to be, keeping their ear to the ground, being our

eyes and ears out there and reporting back to us on a weekly basis, if

necessary, on anything that can happen; and network through local

associations and foreign government agencies.

Some of the

examples of success achieved in the last year were: increased sales of

$3.6 million in food products to Dah Chong Hong — my Chinese is

Hong Kong; assisting the Daesung of Korea to investigate and invest $5

million in a plant to manufacture some products in Prince George; and

assisting Orcatron Manufacturing Ltd. We just announced the other day

the sale of $100,000 worth of scubaphone wireless underwater diver

communication systems to Singapore. I understand that there is now $30

million worth of potential sales as a result of that one action. A

Japanese company, I believe, has a 40 percent interest in Orcatron, a

process whereby you can speak underwater to each other. There is $30

million in sales as a result of that, and all the technology, R and D

and everything must stay here in British Columbia — that's part of

the agreement.

The

Tokyo office works closely with the Ministry of Tourism and the

Ministry of Regional and Economic Development on securing a $5 million

greenfield tourism development project at Boat Harbour on Vancouver

Island. There is lots more; we could go on and on in numbers. But we

are re-evaluating them. We're in the process right now not of writing a

completely new rule book but of evaluating and updating it in light of

some of the things you mentioned and some of the new influences and

alliances around the world, and we are ensuring that they're included

in general terms of reference so that we keep an eye on these things.

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get back to the question asked prior to the

last one, which was about trade with Taiwan. I appreciate the

minister's response, but some two and a half years ago, through the

then Minister of Economic Development, the government of British

Columbia wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada to ask him to change the

Canadian policy and recognize trade with Taiwan. The answer from the

Prime Minister of Canada to the government of British Columbia was that

[4:45]

Just

prior to that we had opened an office in Taiwan through the British

Columbia Chamber of Commerce. It was opened through the chamber of

commerce, because it was impossible to do so directly, Mr. Chairman. A

lot has changed over the years since the policy between the two Chinas

and trade with Taiwan have taken place — or the non-trade with Taiwan.

would just like to ask the minister if he would take the comments that

have been made on the floor of the House today regarding trade with

Taiwan seriously enough to aggressively go after the federal

administration, along with his co-partners in trade throughout the

nation, to do away with what has to be hypocrisy in the extreme. When

we have the two Chinas trading with each other and then have the

People's Republic of China telling Canada and British Columbia that we

shouldn't trade with Taiwan, that has to be hypocrisy in the extreme.

Mr.

Chairman, I would implore the minister responsible to accept that

recognition of Taiwan is an idea and an initiative that now is long

past due for the people of British Columbia, if not the people of

Canada. These jurisdictions, with their newfound wealth and their

ability to build and rebuild, need the expertise of British

Columbians — their housing expertise, their building expertise, their bridge-building expertise — and

all the environmental and pollution control and the environmental

engineers we have in this province. Those countries in the Pacific Rim

need our expertise desperately, and we can sell it to them. What's

more, they have the money to pay for it.

I implore this minister —

through the government, through the initiatives of the Premier's office

and his office, through all the members across this country who are

responsible for trade and industry in this nation — to ask the

Prime Minister of Canada once again, two and a half years after this

government already has done so, to re-initiate talks that will see at

long last the hypocrisy and the wink-wink nudge-nudge ended. It's no

way to do business in British Columbia and in Canada.

Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the minister to take that advice from this side

of the House and go to work and get more trade from Taiwan for British

Columbia.

[ Page

10753 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH : The first member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain is obviously very familiar with the Taiwan situation. When I

was first appointed — and I don't want to use too much levity in

this area or to be flippant — I talked to a certain minister in

Ottawa who has an accent that is even funnier than mine.

I said: "I'm going to go to Taiwan." He said —

and I won't even try the accent: "Well, you can't go there because your

passport wouldn't be valid." I said: "I'm also the chairman of the

British Columbia Trade Development Corporation. I'll go there under

that veil." He said: "Even with a veil, you'd be so ugly they'd

recognize you."

Anyway, I guess it depends on how we

describe the word "recognition." As you pointed out very correctly, if

you're talking about international recognition and diplomatic

recognition, that recognition must come from the government of

paramountcy— and that is Ottawa.

We have, of course,

commercial recognition between the People's Republic of China and

Canada, but more specifically between the People's Republic of China

and British Columbia. We're moving, with as thin a veil as we possibly

can do, in that direction. We have moved from having the British

Columbia Chamber of Commerce representing us to having a Crown

corporation representing us. We're nudging that door open as much as we

possibly can.

We've talked to Ottawa about this. I impress

it upon our counterparts in Ottawa and upon representatives from other

countries who have an influence in this area that we must recognize the

existence of Taiwan, as we must recognize the existence of those

millions and millions of people who inhabit the People's Republic of

China with its tremendous resource of human capital and needs that must

be filled in those countries.

But Ottawa doesn't

necessarily agree that the country should deal with Taiwan on a

diplomatic basis. I've had discussions with representatives from the

People's Republic of China. As far as they are concerned, commercial

dealings with their province of Taiwan is no problem. We're moving

closer to what is going to be a historic change. We'll keep working on

it.