[ Page 8737 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial statement re death of cardiac patient.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 8737

Mr. Cocke –– 8738

Ministerial statement re pay telephone jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 8738

Mr. Mitchell –– 8738

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, fourth report.

Mr. Strachan –– 8739

Oral Questions

Forest industry plant closures. Mr. Hanson –– 8739

Tenure of UBC professor. Mr. Nicolson –– 8739

Complaints filed with employment standards branch. Ms. Sanford –– 8739

B.C. Railway borrowing. Mr. Leggatt –– 8740

Municipal taxation. Mr. Stupich –– 8741

Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 8741

Mrs. Wallace

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On vote 74: operations services –– 8742

Mr. Hall

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to vote 74 –– 8743

Division

On vote 75: marketing services –– 8743

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 75 –– 8745

Division

Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act (Bill 58). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8745

Mr. Levi –– 8747

Mr. Passarell –– 8749

Mr. Leggatt –– 8749

Mr. Nicolson –– 8750

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 8751

Utilities Commission Amendment Act –– 1982 (Bill 66). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8753

Mr. D'Arcy –– 8754

Mr. Lockstead –– 8754

Mr. Hanson –– 8755

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 8755

Vancouver Centennial Celebration Act (Bill 64). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

Third reading –– 8756

Seaboard Assurance Company Act. 1953, Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill PR401).

Second reading. (Mr. Ree)

Mr. Ree –– 8756

Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill PR401).

Second reading. (Mr. Ree)

Third reading –– 8757

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On vote 5 1: minister's office –– 8757

Hon. Mr. Phillips

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are two fine young ladies from the fair community of Hope: my niece Andrea Conti and her friend Dawn Glennie. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I would I like to introduce Erik Eriksson from Courtenay, who is visiting here today with his relatives from Iceland. I would like the House to welcome Atli Arasson and Gudney Eiriksdottir.

MR. STRACHAN: I have three guests this afternoon from the Amalgamated Construction Association. They are Mr. Don Vandervoort and Mr. Alexander. I'd also like the House to welcome Mr. Robert Sebastian, an outstanding .artist from Prince George.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to know that his relatives are in good company in your gallery today. Seated beside them are two brothers from Cowichan-Malahat: John and Malcolm Crockett.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I have the honour to introduce today good friends, Mr. Don and Mrs. Lorraine Nelson of Maple Ridge, who have as their guests Mr. and Mrs. Robie Macdonald of Halifax. I wish the House to make them welcome.

DEATH OF CARDIAC PATIENT

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) stated yesterday in question period: "Dr. Peter Richardson said that a government funding cutback in health care resulting in long waiting lists for surgery accounted for the death of his patient." I asked officials in the Ministry of Health, including a physician, to investigate the circumstances of this case, and I have today received information from the senior physician within the ministry.

I am advised that the patient was a 67-year-old retired man. Eight years ago, he began to have chest pain on exertion due to the failure of his partially blocked coronary arteries to deliver sufficient blood to the heart muscle. I'm further advised that six years ago he underwent coronary angiography and was found to have rather severe coronary artery disease. In particular, one important artery was virtually totally blocked. He underwent bypass surgery at that time and made a reasonably good recovery; however, he continued to have chest pain. Further x-rays were taken of his coronary arteries, which revealed that the bypass was working reasonably well. Therefore he was treated with various heart medications with good results. He was able to do a reasonable amount of activity without symptoms, and his blood pressure, which had been high, was controlled.

I'm further advised that a few months ago he again became troubled by chest pain on exertion. In April of this year, he was once more subjected to coronary artery angiography and his coronary artery disease was found to have advanced; at least three vessels were involved and needed bypassing. However, the bypass done six years ago was still open and functioning well, so it was thought that while he indeed had unpleasant symptoms, he was unlikely to have a serious heart attack in the near future. He was therefore placed on the elective list rather than the urgent or emergency list. I am advised that an additional factor in his placement was that he continued to smoke. It was felt that if he could stop in the interim, his surgical risk would be less.

His condition was apparently reasonably stable until Monday, July 5, when he was admitted to Surrey Memorial Hospital with severe chest pain. I'm advised that his physician's intention was to treat the patient medically in an aggressive fashion in order to "cool down" his severe angina before referring him on for a more urgent surgical procedure. As the week progressed, however, it became apparent that the patient had suffered a slowly evolving condition described as death of heart muscle tissue due to poor blood supply, in turn due to obstructed coronary arteries.

On Friday, four days later, I'm advised that a cardiac surgeon was contacted by the patient's physician, Dr. Richardson, and told of the change in the patient's condition. According to the surgeon the suggestion was that the patient might have to have surgery within a week or two, but I'm told he was not asked to accept the patient in transfer or to do surgery on an emergent basis.

There was a cardiac surgeon, a perfusionist and a complete operating team on standby over the weekend of July 9 at Vancouver General Hospital, and they could have attended to the patient had there been a request. I am advised by our medical consultant that Dr. Richardson advised him that by the weekend there was no point in attempting surgery, as the damage had already been done.

Given the circumstances outlined above, there is no way that the death of this patient can be attributed to "hospital spending cutbacks." All three hospitals that do cardiac surgery have continued to give it high priority. In only one hospital, the Vancouver General Hospital, has the number of cases done each week fallen off somewhat, and this is due primarily to a shortage of skilled personnel. Emergency cardiac surgery continues to be available in all three hospitals on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week basis. During the recent weekend, four emergency heart procedures were done at St. Paul's Hospital on patients from various points in the province. It should be emphasized that the hospital spending restraint program has not reduced the amount of cardiac surgery being done in the province, nor has it increased the waiting lists or waiting times for cardiac surgery.

This afternoon a Vancouver cardiologist. who has not hesitated in the past to be critical of the Ministry of Health, spoke to me on the phone and expressed his concern over statements currently being made with respect to the circumstances of cardiac surgery. He feels that the statements are misleading and unfounded. While he expressed his desire to see the waiting lists for elective cardiac surgery shortened, he feels strongly that the emergency open-heart surgery facilities are readily available and are doing a good job. It was he who mentioned to me the four emergency cases handled successfully by St. Paul's on a recent weekend.

In addition, the president of Vancouver General Hospital, Mr. Jim Flett, today advised me that the current financial constraints have not limited Vancouver General Hospital resources for cardiac surgery in any way. In fact, the hospital has gone out of its way to avoid such a situation. Any problem that exists with respect to achieving their 15 cases per week is

[ Page 8738 ]

attributed to the lack of technical resources, such as perfusionists.

Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the information provided to me today, there is no evidence that "hospital spending cutbacks" contributed in any way to this death. There has been no reduction in the availability of open-heart surgery in the province since the restraint program was instituted. In particular, it should be noted that emergency cardiac surgery continues to be readily available at all three cardiac surgery centres, including weekends.

MR. COCKE: I have one or two remarks to make with respect to this particular case. I can understand why the minister wanted to get as much detail as possible because of the charges that were made.

I'm not sure of the relevancy of the person's age — that's a value judgment one makes about age. Also, it occurs to me that I read about this gentleman some time before he actually had the cardiac accident which took his life. He happened to have been previously written up in a health article in the Vancouver Sun. It is a fact that that particular case was noted before the person died.

I think the general thrust of my concern here is that the director of cardiac surgery at the Royal Jubilee Hospital said: "The expansion of cardiac facilities, approved twice by the Health ministry, had to be cancelled when the restraint program was announced." That's contrary to what the minister has just told us — that's number one. Number two is that the minister explains this by saying that there is some lack of technical people. But the chief of cardiac surgery at the new cardiology unit at VGH reported a decrease of three operations per week — that is 150 operations a year.

I suspect there are some problems out there that the minister is not dealing with in terms of....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You suspect, but do you know?

MR. COCKE: I know it; I'm trying to be euphemistic. The former Minister of Health knows it better than anybody in this room other than myself.

MR. SPEAKER: As a general guideline for both ministerial statements and replies, statements of fact, policy and administration are in order, but argumentation must be avoided.

PAY TELEVISION JURISDICTION

HON. MR. McGEER: I have a ministerial statement for the assembly.

On July 9, 1982, the government of British Columbia commenced legal action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the government of Canada and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission as a result of recent initiatives of the CRTC claiming jurisdiction over pay television and non-broadcast undertakings by cable companies.

First of all, I want to impress on everybody concerned that the government of British Columbia takes this course of action with great reluctance. For years the province has attempted to reach a political accord with the federal government to resolve jurisdiction over non-broadcast undertakings offered by cable TV companies. The federal government has continued to ignore provincial rights in this area. As recently as May of this year, during our legislative session, at a meeting of federal-provincial Ministers of Communications in Calgary, I pleaded with the Hon. Francis Fox, the federal Minister of Communications, to agree to serious negotiation to resolve this question at the political level. I indicated that the federal government's obstinacy would ultimately force a resolution in the courts. Unfortunately the federal minister continued to insist that pay TV was exclusively a federal matter, and that no recognition of provincial jurisdiction would be forthcoming.

British Columbia is seeking from the courts declarations that the federal parliament has no constitutional authority to authorize the CRTC to license and regulate the business of producing, acquiring, packaging or distributing programs intended for use on pay television, nor the constitutional authority to authorize the CRTC to license and regulate non-broadcasting undertakings of cable television. Among the services that non-broadcasting undertakings can provide are non-programming surveillance for burglary, health, fire, information services, video games and shared computer services. This is not an action against those pay TV undertakings themselves, nor does it suggest that the federal government is excluded from involvement with the industry. It only seeks confirmation that their area of jurisdiction is confined to broadcast undertakings.

The reason for the provincial government's intense interest in this area goes far beyond the question of jurisdiction over pay television. That is only the most visible of a host of new services that will revolutionize communications. Communications are far too important to the social and economic well-being of British Columbians to turn, by default, such matters over to a regulator 3,000 miles away. It is our philosophy not to regulate but to deregulate. It's paradoxical that in order to do so we must first establish our right to regulate.

I want to emphasize to pay TV and cable companies that I'm particularly sensitive to the uncertainty thrust upon them by this continuing jurisdictional discord. As I indicated in my submission to the CRTC when it commenced hearings on pay television last year, the government of British Columbia was doing its utmost to find a political solution, but should efforts fail and resort to the courts become necessary, I had every confidence that provincial jurisdiction would be confirmed.

I repeat: this legal action which we have been forced into is not taken against the industry but only against federal regulation. I therefore urge pay TV and cable companies to proceed with their plans on a business as usual approach until this matter is ultimately resolved. The British Columbia Utilities Commission will continue to accept applications, and I particularly wish to assure all companies licensed by the CRTC that they can obtain certification from the provincial regulator. This accommodation mitigates the effects of federal-provincial jurisdictional differences and will allow development to proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: I would like to respond to the minister and state that the NDP regretfully supports his need to go to court. In a world faced with all the problems of war and peace, if we in Canada can't negotiate on jurisdiction over pay TV, somehow we lose the ability to govern ourselves. I'm sorry that we have to take court action, but if that is the only step left, the NDP supports the government in taking it, because we believe that communications jurisdiction should be with the provincial government.

[ Page 8739 ]

We favour pay TV — the concept, the choice and the multiplicity of channels. We are hoping that the minister will give some leadership within that business, and that there will be jobs and a positive program created in the securities that I am very familiar with, and also with the actors.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, we are sorry that the government cannot negotiate, but we must bring it to a head. If the courts are the last resort, then we must support it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to discharge motion 19 under my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's fourth report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"The preamble of Bill PR401, intituled Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982, has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported as amended.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman, Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills."

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY PLANT CLOSURES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests. B.C. Forest Products of Victoria has now announced that they will not reopen their plant, and the temporary shutdown has become indefinite. Can the minister advise the House whether he has decided that all forest companies shall give reasonable notice of indefinite shutdowns of, for example, three months to their employees and to the minister?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I wonder if I could ask the member to repeat the question.

MR. HANSON: My question relates to a situation where a company which embarked upon a temporary shutdown will now, without notice to its workers or the government, remain shut down indefinitely. Is it not reasonable, and have you decided, that from now on forest companies shall give three months' notice of indefinite shutdowns?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No.

TENURE OF UBC PROFESSOR

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Professor Julius Kane of the University of British Columbia has been found guilty in county court and lost subsequent appeals at the higher court on two counts of theft of funds from a national research grant. Can the minister advise the House why he retains his position as professor at the University of British Columbia?

HON. MR. McGEER: Not because of any policy of this government or any support from the minister. Unfortunately, the administration and board of governors of the University of British Columbia have entered into an agreement with their faculty association by which such matters will be referred to an arbitration panel for decision. I don't believe the board of governors should have given that authority away, and I think he result of that arbitration confirms that that was an unwise thing to do. Unfortunately, that's the circumstance, but I want to make it very clear that I in no way support the University of British Columbia for the decision that was made in the Julius Kane case. I do not think he should be a member of that faculty.

MR. NICOLSON: Is it the minister's opinion then that the university has the right to give away that particular authority, which can only be granted by the Legislative Assembly?

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be happy to investigate that question. I have been told that it has, but I feel strongly enough about this matter that I will ask the question again and report back to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice.

COMPLAINTS FILED WITH
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS BRANCH

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the minister has received information concerning a complaint filed with the employment standards branch against Western Lettuce Now, Inc., which is partly owned by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), can the minister advise why these employees were paid under the guise of farmworkers and denied overtime?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, this particular question was asked approximately a week or ten days ago. In response. the employment standards branch annually receives literally thousands of complaints. The allegations that complaints were filed against Western Lettuce Now Inc. are correct, but those particular allegations are being investigated in the way that all complaints are handled, and the matter is under review. That's the mandate which the director of employment standards has under the legislation.

While I'm on my feet, reference was made in the second part of the member's question of about ten days ago to applications made by Western Lettuce Now, Inc. to the youth employment program. The information I have is that no such application was made and no positions under the program have been approved for this employer.

[ Page 8740 ]

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken a personal interest in this as a result of the information I provided to him. Has he determined the amount of overtime owed to the workers, and what steps has the minister himself taken to ensure that these overtime payments will be made?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the comment of personal interest, this particular case is not any different from any other case submitted to the labour standards branch. It seems to be of particular interest because a colleague happens to be a part-owner of Western Lettuce Now, Inc. It's not my function to examine each of those allegations in detail; that's why we have a director of labour standards and industrial relations officers in that particular branch; they make the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, this particular allegation will be investigated and examined in the same routine manner as all other complaints.

MS. SANFORD: In this case it happens to be a colleague and a minister of this cabinet who is involved in these allegations. The minister himself asked for information concerning this case specifically. In view of the fact that the cheques issued to the employees of Western Lettuce were signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has the minister informed his colleague that there are labour standards in this province?

B.C. RAILWAY BORROWING

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. B.C. Rail signed short-term notes for the construction of the Anzac line. These notes were due July 2. They totalled some $87 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: Can the minister advise us whether those notes have been redeemed by B.C. Rail? Have those notes been rolled over into further short-term debt or are they being capitalized into long-term debt for the company?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member for Coquitlam Moody has been in this House for a couple of years. I realize that he's being educated in the ways of the province of British Columbia after Ottawa....

MR. SPEAKER: Let's have the answer to the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I find it surprising that the member would direct that question to me, when he knows full well that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is the fiscal agent for all Crown corporations in this government. I'll be quite happy to take the question as notice and get the responsible minister to bring back an answer in due course to the members of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is redirected.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to assure the minister that I will ask the Minister of Finance when and if he comes to the House; he's not here today.

MR. BRUMMET: He's with Gary Lauk.

MR. LEGGATT: I didn't hear that witticism. Could I hear it again?

My question is to the same minister. The minister has stated on many occasions that the construction of the Anzac line is going to be on a pay-as-you-go basis. Could he advise why there is a debt accumulating to B.C. Rail over this construction project? Is the minister ready to admit to the House that he has now abandoned any pretence of pay as you go and is saddling B.C. Rail with further long-term debt as a result of the project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, that member never ceases to amaze me in some of the questions that he asks here, because he has incorrectly and erroneously accused the government of taking money out of the mouths of babes and mothers and putting it into the northeast coal project, stripping the medical services of the province and having people starve to death on the streets because they couldn't get social services. Now he stands up and accuses this government of not putting money into northeast coal. I cannot for the life of me understand where that member for Coquitlam-Moody comes from.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister's aware, of course, that he can't get away with irrelevant answers to relevant questions, which he continues to do. By special warrant on March 25, just before this Legislature sat, $45 million in government funds went to B.C. Rail. Can the minister confirm that this was used to buy down interest charges and cover up the true cost of borrowing for the project?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There again that question is amazing because the Leader of the Opposition went out and told the public of British Columbia that that $45 million was to cover huge overruns on the Anzac spurline. He should listen to his leader.

(Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question that we are answering is a question asked here today, not a question asked several weeks or months ago.

(Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEGGATT: Has the minister read the report of this Legislature's Crown corporations committee which contains all the information that was asked him today, and if he hasn't read it would he read it so he'd give some relevant answers to this Legislature?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the member for Coquitlam-Moody if that's the same report that he leaked to the Vancouver Sun, which on the next day reported huge overruns and the tunnels caving in and everything else. I think you should read the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 8741 ]

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

MR. STUPICH: In the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The city of Vancouver and other municipalities have repeatedly asked the minister for legislation which would allow municipalities to set a differential mill rate that would enable them to provide some relief from provincial assessment decisions for small business. Has the minister now decided to grant this request to assist municipalities in dealing with the latest Social Credit tax crisis?

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether, to his knowledge, there are proceedings taking place at this moment that would put the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative into receivership.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to my knowledge.

MRS. WALLACE: Some time ago — about last May in fact — the Minister of Agriculture and Food addressed a letter to the Federation of Agriculture relative to farm income assurance, which read in part: "As you will appreciate, the history of some of the plans illustrates that the relationship between the calculated basic cost and the market return is far from satisfactory." He suggested that some of the plans, not being viable, should not be in existence.

Inasmuch as beef is one of the most costly programs, has the minister decided that that farm income assurance plan is not viable?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a question of privilege, This is the first opportunity I've had to raise this matter, because confirmation of its existence was not given to me until about 1 o'clock today. The question of privilege, briefly, is that members of the House are being impeded and obstructed in the pursuit of their duties and obligations. I'll set out some circumstances leading up to that, if I could, Mr. Speaker.

On June 7, 1982, Miss Gloria Williams, who is a researcher working with the NDP caucus, examined certain vouchers and attached invoices and bills under the surveillance of an officer from the Ministry of Finance, pursuant to the rules and procedures that were in effect at that time. Miss Williams transcribed from vouchers, invoices and billings certain information.

One particular voucher examined on that day was identified with audit control number 805493, with a departmental control number A493889. Attached to that voucher were two invoices from the Harbour Towers. One was dated March 19, 1981, and identified by the number 1355386. The other invoice, undated, was a banquet services invoice, numbered 454. The banquet services invoice number 454 was for dinners, drinks and hors-d'oeuvres totalling $224.60. Invoice number B55386 listed items such as valet, telegram, garage and miscellaneous, for a total of $224.60. The items shown on each invoice — that is, on the banquet services invoice and the invoice directly submitted by the Harbour Towers Hotel — coincided one with the other in individual dollar charges. As an example. the invoice submitted had a garage bill of $115.60: the banquet services invoice had hors-d'oeuvres and dinners totalling $115.60.

Either a banquet for eight persons took place, but the hotel billed for something else, or the other items — namely, the garage and a telegram for $49 — were charged up and the invoice relating to the banquet services was an attempt to substitute for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Minister of Universities rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the committee on public accounts exists to go into this kind of detail, and thus save the House the time and the tedium of individual vouchers. May I respectfully suggest that it be referred to that committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, matters which take place in committee must be cared for in committee. The member has risen to his feet to state a matter of privilege. The member knows that to state a matter of privilege, it should be done as briefly as possible. His early premise was that a member had been impeded in carrying out his responsibilities. It is apparent to the Chair that all of the detail that is present in his statement perhaps goes beyond the realm of a brief statement: the member must soon show how the detail affects a member's right to carry out his responsibility

MR. HOWARD: I had just, in fact, reached that point, Mr. Speaker, but I felt it was necessary to identify what it was that Miss Williams — whose word I accept — says was on those particular invoices. I make the statement in the House on my own responsibility, in any event.

Last Thursday the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and I were examining certain vouchers and documents in a room in the Douglas Building set aside for that purpose under the surveillance of an officer from the Ministry of Finance. In the course of looking at those particular documents, I came across a voucher having thereon audit control number 805493. showing the payee to be the Harbour Towers Hotel at a certain address. The amount to be paid was $224.60.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. I must now ask the member to come quickly to the matter of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: There were no attachments to that voucher: no invoices. I inquired of the officer of the Ministry of Finance who was there what may have happened to them and where they might be. He held the voucher up to the light, looked at it, and said: "Well, there must have been something there, because there are staple marks, staple holes, in the voucher itself" — something that obviously had been attached. We looked through all the vouchers in the pile in which that particular voucher was resting; there were no loose papers of any nature.

It wasn't until later, upon checking with Miss Williams, that I discovered that the missing documents were in fact the ones which I had referred to earlier, namely invoice B55386 and banquet services invoice number 454. Upon checking with the Ministry of Finance officer and upon checking with him finally today, I was advised that he is not able to locate

[ Page 8742 ]

those missing invoices and that the search for them has been concluded. The question of privilege I put, Mr. Speaker, if you find that I do have one, is that that is impeding members in the progress of their duties and their responsibilities.

I would like to table the relevant references which I have. I cannot table copies of the originals because that was denied to us.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand.

MR. HOWARD: I also, Mr. Speaker, give notice to you of a motion that I intend to move, if you find that there is, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we will review the statement made, and we will reserve decision and bring a decision to the House as quickly as possible.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 74: operations services, $5,269, 233.

MR. HALL: This morning we discussed the ministry in very general terms, and received answers to just about every one of our questions. We have some more questions as we go through the remaining two very large votes.

My first question relates to the deputy minister's office, simply because we now keep a set of books on the minister's office which is more difficult, as the figures aren't broken down in quite the same way. I notice that last year a staff of three people in the deputy minister's office cost the taxpayer $107,000; a staff of two people this year cost $158,000. There can often be a very simple explanation for that kind of thing and I'm sure the minister has it, but I would like to know why two people cost a lot more than three used to cost.

My second question deals with the specifics related to my general question this morning about research, policy planning and policy development. In this vote, which is $615,000 — slightly down from last year — there is an item in our second book of estimates. We have to have more pieces of paper to handle the estimates now than ever before in the history of British Columbia politics. Looking at this second large and unwieldy book, we find $149,000 for professional services. We're now in the seventh month, more than a quarter of the way through the year. Can the minister tell us what's been ordered to date in the way of professional services?

A second question related to policy development and planning is that under data processing appears the princely sum of $295,000. I don't know what B.C. Systems is charging on an hourly basis or on a project basis, but it's obviously far too much. While I have every reason to suppose there is first-class work going on here — and you're probably getting some work done by outside consultants — I can't understand why it takes $300,000 to transmogrify that raw material into some readable information. Frankly, $295,000 is too much. I'd like to know what the minister is doing about nearly $300,000 for data processing. I think this is one of the areas where the estimates have been slightly padded — if not padded, then we've got to talk about value for money and find out, when we get to the estimates of the minister in charge of B.C. Systems, why they would charge a little ministry like this nearly $300,000 to put some figures down. We need to find out who's going where with whom perhaps, and why and with what, and for how long. That's an awful lot of material going in to find out these facts.

So there we are under vote 74: why is it costing more in the deputy minister's office? What have we ordered up to date on professional services? How about that data-processing charge?

MS. BROWN: I appreciate the minister's deferring to me.

I would like to ask about one very small resort on Saltspring Island. A letter was written to the minister, dated June 7 of this year, from a resort named Spindrift. This is a very small resort with just five cabins on five acres of land, of which four are a natural ecological reserve. It has something in the neighbourhood of 3,000 feet of waterfront, so it's a very beautiful, small resort. However, the owners of that resort prepared a brochure which they wanted to have placed on the ferries. The resort is open in the winter so it's used quite extensively at Christmas and New Year's. They ran into some problems because it seems to be ministry policy that a resort can give the ferries no less than 3,000 brochures. For a resort that has only five cabins, they certainly didn't want 3,000 visitors. They were willing to put brochures on the ferries but not quite that amount. Also, they found the cost of printing 3,000 brochures too high. I wonder whether the minister ever took into account that the smaller resorts really don't need to live by the same rules that the very large resorts live by.

The other problem that they were having along these same lines, which they brought to the attention of the ministry, was that the basic costs that the resorts have to deal with — the taxes, utilities, telephone and hydro — are already fixed costs and they have no control over them. They're wondering if there shouldn't be some flexibility with the smaller things, like paying for brochures, which the ministry has control over. Maybe a resort like Spindrift, which only has five cabins, should not be called upon to bear the cost of printing 3,000 brochures, especially when they are only putting the brochures on the smaller B.C. ferries, not on the ferries going to Nanaimo, etc.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), our critic, the deputy minister's office has two auxiliaries. You see their listing in terms of dollars, and not in terms of employees. I'm sure the member can appreciate that the workload in the deputy minister's office, with the increasing objectives of the ministry's mandate, is very heavy. Because so much of our effort relates to offshore and the marketing of offshore, it means that he has increased efforts in terms of keeping abreast of everything that is going on.

In the research area, this increase, which incidentally is not as high as we thought it might be, includes charges for the Beautiful British Columbia magazine. They were not reflected before. As you know, the Beautiful British Columbia magazine is now totally computerized. It is now housing the results of many of our surveys, including the ski survey, the travel statistics and such things as the annual inventory of the accommodation directory. These were all done manually

[ Page 8743 ]

before; they're now being done by computer. Of course the handicapped accommodation directory will be in there. Many of the services that were done by hand before and were slow and cumbersome are now on the computer service. This is allowing us a great deal more efficiency. It also includes the operation of the tourism module for the province.

To the member for Burnaby concerning Spindrift Resort, I think one has to take a number of factors into consideration. Firstly, they are a very small, charming and effective resort with only five cabins. Because they are open year-round they would be getting better value for their dollar through specific marketing practices and tying in with specific tour operators. As you know, you can spend an incredible amount of money in advertising and brochures and not have the impact and the return that you think you will. If they were on the major ferries, it would cost them more. It would cost them $40 to take part in that service. The 3,000 brochures would be a minimum because of the volume of people. It wouldn't be wise for them to be there with their small volume and their small accommodation.

In terms of the smaller ferries, again they may wish to reflect upon the value they would be getting for their dollar there. We find that there's good impact in terms of brochures on ferries, but there is a wastage factor. It depends on the size of your resort and the experience that you offer as to whether it's of value. That has to be assessed on a pretty definitive basis.

They would be having most of their brochures, I believe, distributed through the Vancouver Island Tourist Association. That's where, as you say, you get the biggest bang for the buck, because they would take them with them to their trade shows. That's where you're getting definite people contact with the brochure. Brochures will do so much. But as we know in the ministry, and as most of the regions in the industry know, you need that conveyance of excitement and the opportunity for personal questions.

Also, we're always happy to take their brochures with our staff to the trade shows. If they wish any assistance from the ministry in terms of their marketing program — whether or not they wish to take it — I'm certainly very pleased to arrange for them to come in and meet with our staff, who are very experienced.

MR. HALL: I thank the minister for the answers. They certainly clear up that item on data-processing. It's amazing that they would put the data-processing charge in the policy, development and planning total, when they've got supplies and services for Beautiful British Columbia magazine and ministry publications down as $2,304,751. I certainly accept the minister's statement that that's the way it is, but again, that's almost like creative bookkeeping, in the sense that you've got one specific expensive item, and a very important item — namely, the update and upkeep of that excellent magazine — in against a research vote, when it could probably be a legitimate charge and have been netted out in your subheadings under the group account classification of the Beautiful British Columbia magazine.

The two auxiliaries are going to cost us almost $44,000. That averages out to $22,000 apiece. Are they skilled auxiliaries? Are they clerical types? What's the nature of those two auxiliaries? I suppose if they're working in the deputy minister's office, they will be support for the deputy minister's office.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'll answer the first part of your question first. All data-processing is in one place, under policy, development and planning for the whole ministry.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, we've examined the record of the subvotes in vote 74. We've noticed that there is 14 percent increase in some expenses and a 13.9 percent increase in other areas that we find shouldn't be there. In keeping with our general attitude throughout the estimates — I think we've done ten ministerial estimates now — I'm going to ask the committee to consider a short, sharp reduction in vote 74, just to bring it back into line with what was available last year and not to spend money on extra office expenses and so on. I therefore move that vote 74 be reduced by $50,058.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 74 approved.

On vote 75: marketing services, S8,207,664.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, this is the vote in which the minister can do the most work and the most good to improve the fortunes of the tourist industry in the province. As I said this morning, this may well be the major industry of the province this year, due to the unfortunate happenings in our other two basic industries.

I noticed, Mr. Chairman, that in dealing with market development and marketing and advertising, the ministry officials had predicted as late as May of this year that B.C. would have 8.5 percent more tourists this year and they would spend up to $2.2 billion, which would be a 10 percent increase on last year. However, the industry itself is not quite as optimistic. Mr. Butterworth. president of the B.C. Hotels Association, is discussing a fall-off in business of some 15 to 25 percent in the general hotel line and as much as 30 percent in what is generally termed "the walk-in" or "rubber tire business."

[ Page 8744 ]

The minister herself pointed out that certain sectors were doing very well in encouraging overseas visitors from Europe and Japan. Canadian customs officials report a 25 percent drop in U.S. citizens passing through the Douglas border crossing, which you know only too well, Mr. Chairman, having once represented the area surrounding that crossing, which I and the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) have fallen heir to.

I asked this morning what was available to the minister in the form of modern, responsive, quick programs to try to redress the situation as we stand here today in the second week of July. I'd like the minister to tell us in short what emergency programs — if I can so characterize them — the ministry directorate, the four people she talked about who really run the ministry with her, have got going in order to responsively react to this missing 25 percent, this fall-off in walk-in business, particularly in the areas that were referred to. I'm sure she knows the article well that appeared in our daily newspapers at the beginning of this month.

The marketing votes, Mr. Speaker, add up to nearly $7 million. That, of course, includes staff, support services and so on, but is healthy change at the disposal of a marketing and advertising agency. If I remember correctly — and I've got a cribsheet, as it were, of the estimates of the Department of Travel Industry in 1975-76 — when I went through a similar exercise sitting on the other side of the House, we had certain spot campaigns at that time that were going to shore up weak areas and get into areas which were then experimental. I'm sure that now, in the fullness of time, they are producing if not hordes of visitors a reasonable return on that which was invested in 1974-75.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell us what kind of reactive and reactionary programs — I use the word "reactionary" not in the political sense but in the sense of being alert to the situation — she has to combat the kinds of subheadings and headlines we see in the Times-Colonist. One headline says: "Hotels are Suffering During the Slump." The company that compiles all B.C. statistics, Pannel Kerr Forster Campbell Sharp, pointed out the occupancy rate in the lower end of Vancouver Island is 46.4 percent, which is 20 percent lower than the same period last year. That general question on how alert the department is is fine when you've got $5 million to have a great advertising campaign — whether it's in Tokyo, London or Dülsseldorf — but how quickly, brightly and smartly can we now get attuned to what is going on this year?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, I appreciate your concern. However, I would suggest that there is not an emergency. The 25 percent U.S. drop that the member is referring to is only for less than one night; one night and more, as far as we know, is doing much better.

In reviewing what we have in our figures, it would appear that we've had a good first quarter for the province. There was some concern in the second quarter, and we have great hope for the fall and winter. The United Kingdom market appears to be moving ahead; the German market appears to be moving ahead; and the Japanese market is showing a slight increase. Our expectations there were that if we could hold that market, in view of the fact that it's slipping in so many other places, we would be most fortunate. So we are pleased about that.

We have to recognize that we're getting conflicting reports from various people, often reflecting information that is being taken out of context and reflecting individual operations and management practices. We have long been saying as a ministry, and I have certainly been saying as a minister, that the type of tourism that we enjoyed in British Columbia, where we could more or less count on creaming our local markets in terms of attendance, are long since gone. Many other jurisdictions are looking at our traditional markets for their benefit, as well as the fact that tourism all over is much more competitive. Also, the traveller today is much more discriminating, so it is incumbent upon the industry itself, along with the government, to keep abreast of marketing techniques and demands, and to openly work towards their share of the tourism market.

We have been encouraging all resorts and tourist facilities not only to look at the quality of their service and their product but also to recognize that the visitor today generally wants more than an overnight bed or a quick meal. They may have times for that, but basically they are looking for more of an experience. Individual management, when there's more competition in the marketplace, just by nature of having more accommodation and facilities in British Columbia to have their share will need to broaden their base, see that their facilities are up to snuff and that the experience they and their community can offer is there, as well as go out and seek their share of the marketplace.

In terms of marketing ourselves, I won't go into all the details, but the member is aware that we've had three major overseas industrial tourism promotions — on which I've been involved — which have been highly successful. This is one of the reasons our German market is up.

As I mentioned, we also have an overall basic strategy for the year, and we're increasing tourism to a year-round industry. While one month might show a decrease for one or more operators, it may be being picked up in the spring and fall. So overall they could well be up for the year, but they're having a more equitable year and that helps the employment. Our basic marketing program is designed in such a way that we can fill in if there is an emergency.

At this time I would have to suggest, as I have before, that good news and credibility take a long time to build. Bad news travels very quickly, and negative statements made in British Columbia, as the hon. member knows too well, whether there's fact to them or not, hit the wire service, travel and carry bad news that in fact may not be the case. Mr. Plul, our assistant deputy minister, has just come back from a west coast tour in which he checked with all the outlets for our articles and pictures. He was on hotlines and on TV and met with many tour operators and our own people. The one problem that he did encounter was that some incorrect or misquoted statements made by some people in the industry are being quoted down there. That does have a negative effect. But once that's out, you almost can't pick it up. We've tried in that area. I would have to suggest that the hospital workers — the executive who have been speaking without foundation and so foolishly and irresponsibly in this area — could, in the long run, have an impact.

But we have run a good, basic campaign. We have marketed well in cooperation with the industry. The proper presentations have been made to hundreds of tour operators, and that benefit is showing up.

We have our friendship exchange program running, and we are intensifying the efforts in terms of the value of the dollar in the American market. As you know, it's a good bargain. We have a promotional program going ahead which

[ Page 8745 ]

will include a four-page ad this weekend in Washington state, which will say: "Come on up while our dollar is down." Three-quarters of this ad, I might add, is paid for by 50 of the operators in the province.

Our marketing program is flexible. It's not so rigid that we can't adjust it, and in many areas we do. We are accentuating familiarization tours and the convention potential of British Columbia; and, as I mentioned, Mr. Plul's travels up the coast are partially a sounding for us as well as an extra assist to our promotion.

I would have to say, Mr. Member, with great respect, that I believe tourism is up between 4 percent and 5 percent now, in terms of tourists themselves. I'll stand with my predictions at this time. I would expect to see about a 10 percent to 11 percent dollar increase. I'll make a little wager with the member. I hope I'm right. But if not, we'll have a Perrier party together.

MR. HALL: I'm all in favour of parties. I want to bet on the same side. I entirely agree with the minister that the negative statements are the most difficult to get rid of in this industry. I certainly wouldn't bet against an increase. I would want to double the increase, and we should work the up-side of it.

Let me finish, because I don't want to give the impression at all that I'm grilling the minister in some awful way so that she's going to admit that tourism will be down. That's not the point of the exercise at all. The point is to see how quickly the ministry can respond in a single way to a specific market or point of origin, and she's answered those questions for me.

I will say, however, that in viewing in my mind's eye what she has just said, it seems to me that she should spend some money dealing with the headlines we're getting in the newspapers, and perhaps indeed that she should be spreading joy about tourism to combat the kind of headline of July 9 which said: "Tourist Industry Facing Tough Times." Maybe the production of a quarterly statistical report showing that we're not doing too badly — in fact, nailing down those figures that you've just given us — is something you can look at with your staff. That's certainly the kind of thing I'd like to encourage. Knowing many of the staff, I know how busy they must be in collecting the information and spreading the good word about British Columbia. Anybody who lives in British Columbia is, as of course you know, your best ambassador anyway.

Nevertheless, there is a touch of profligacy here — just a little bit. I notice a 141 percent increase in office furniture. There is nothing wrong with the chair that I sat in. I won't be so cruel as to say you can fit in it, or is it the other way round? I've forgotten; maybe I am being cruel. But that's too much — that is, a 141 percent increase in office furniture is too much. Advertising is also up. There is a touch of freedom there that we'd like to see curtailed in terms of spending, and in keeping with the rest of my colleagues, I've got to put a rein on that. I therefore move that vote 75 be reduced by $1,474,646.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 75 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS DISPUTES ACT

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In rising to introduce second reading of this bill, I would like to take the members of the assembly briefly through some of the history of the reserves of 22 Indian bands in this province. going back many decades. This is the second time that a Legislature in British Columbia has enacted legislation with respect to these particular matters, and it is my belief, as a result of extensive negotiations which have taken place since March 1977, that this should be the last time that the Legislature of British Columbia will be obliged to deal with this particular problem. The last time that legislation was discussed in this chamber with regard to this matter was in 1919.

Following the creation of the Crown colony of Vancouver Island in 1849, Governor James Douglas and his successors carried out a policy of reserving lands for the use and occupation of Indians within British Columbia. Under the colonial powers that Governor Douglas exercised in those years, he was able to identify and reserve lands which were appropriate for the use and oOccupation of native Indian bands.

When British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871, article 13 of the terms of union with Canada required the new province of British Columbia to continue to set aside lands from time to time as Indian reserves. But article 13 also stated in part: "The charge of the Indians and the trusteeship and management of the lands reserved for their use and benefit shall be assumed by the dominion government."

Within a short time after the colony of British Columbia joined the Confederation, serious disagreements arose between the province and the dominion government over the size and number of Indian reserves and the manner in which the government of British Columbia was carrying out its responsibilities under the terms of article 13 of the terms of

[ Page 8746 ]

union. The new province maintained that to accede to the dominion's demand for large reserves based on per capita acreage formulas, which were then used in the prairie provinces, would hamper the settlement and development of British Columbia by the increasing number of European settlers who were arriving in this province. Unlike the prairie provinces, with their vast areas of open fertile land, British Columbia's mountainous terrain and heavy forest cover limited the amount of land suitable for settlement. As might be expected, there was a continuing conflict between what the Indians perceived as their entitlement — and, indeed, what the dominion government officials believed was the province's responsibility under the terms of union — and the needs and desires of settlers coming to this province.

From 1876 onward, reserve allotment commissions spent years identifying and reserving lands for Indian bands. Nonetheless, disputes continued between the two levels of government over the number and size of reserves and the province's reversionary interest in reserve lands. It was then held by British Columbia that lands made into reserves would, if they ceased to be occupied by the Indian bands, revert to the Crown provincial. This was disputed by the Dominion government and was a constant source of annoyance to the government of Canada and, of course, to the Indian bands as well.

In 1912 the federal government appointed a special commissioner, Mr. J.A.J. McKenna, to attempt to negotiate with the province a final settlement of these continuing disputes. McKenna met with then Premier Richard McBride, and as a result of those meetings, an agreement was reached which provided for a joint commission to adjust the acreage of Indian reserves. It was then being alleged that some Indian reserves were too large, that some Indian reserves were too small, and that indeed some reserve entitlements had not been fulfilled.

The McKenna-McBride commission, as it became known, had the power to set aside additional lands for reserves or to remove lands that it considered to be in excess of Indian needs. However, under the terms of the agreement which led to the establishment of the commission, lands could only be removed or cut off — as it had been become popular to refer to the process — with Indian consent. The commissioners appointed under the McKenna-McBride agreement travelled throughout British Columbia for three years, visiting Indian bands and assessing their need for land. At all times the Indians were assured that no lands would be removed from their reserves without their consent. Nonetheless, many Indians opposed the work of the commissioners, feeling that the bands' wishes would not be properly taken into consideration in decisions relating to reserve allotments. I suppose in retrospect it might be said that the Indians, who expressed such opposition, were proven right in the long run.

In 1916 the commission submitted its report. Briefly, it recommended that approximately 87,000 acres of land be added to existing reserves and about 47,000 acres be cut off. Upon review of the commission's recommendations, the amount cut off was later reduced to about 33,400 acres. Following 1916 it remained for the governments to adopt the recommendations of the McKenna-McBride commission and for the federal government to obtain the consent of the Indians whose reserves were to be reduced or cut off. In 1919 the Legislature of British Columbia passed an act authorizing the province to do such things as necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the commission.

Early in 1920 the federal deputy superintendent-general of Indian affairs recommended to the Minister of the Interior of the government of Canada that the required federal legislation authorize the federal government to effect cutoffs without Indian consent, if necessary. The federal government recognized that it might be impossible to obtain Indian consent because of the bands' antagonism, and the province was urging it to get on with the business of implementing the commission's recommendations.

On March 12, 1920, the Minister of the Interior, the Hon. Arthur Meighen, introduced a bill in the House of Commons to authorize the federal government to adopt the commission's report. The bill said in part "The governor-in-counciI may order such reductions or cutoffs to be effected without surrenders of the same by the Indians, notwithstanding any provisions of the Indian Act to the contrary." Mr. Meighen blamed agitators and others for convincing the Indians not to provide consent.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Although the passage of the bill may have been legally proper, the 22 Indian bands that were affected as a result of that legislation felt that it was a breach of the 1912 McKenna-McBride agreement. The bands persisted in their grievances over the years, with both the federal and provincial governments being pressed to resolve the dispute through the return of the cutoff lands. Finally, discussions between the two governments began in the mid 1970s, and members of this assembly were involved in those discussions. In 1976 the federal and provincial governments met to discuss the basis upon which discussion should take place. Finally, in March 1977, at a meeting with a committee of the 22 bands, it was agreed that negotiations would begin in earnest.

The Hon. Warren Allmand, who was then the federal minister, and I met in Victoria in March 1977 with the committee members representing the 22 Indian bands to discuss the basis upon which tripartite meetings would be held for the purpose of achieving a method of determining the settlement of this long-outstanding problem.

Early in 1978 the two governments made a joint offer of settlement to the Indian committee. Basically the province would return to reserve status the approximately 30,000 acres which it still held under its control and would negotiate the compensation with the Indian bands affected for certain lands which the province might wish to retain for public purposes. This, however, would be a decision resting basically with the Indian bands. But it was our wish and belief — it has, in fact, proven to be the case — that lands which have been clearly identified as used for public purposes would, in the view of the Indian bands, appropriately remain for such use. In addition, the province would return, with interest, all moneys which it had received out of the sale of cutoff lands and any resources from those lands. It would provide compensation for physical damage to the lands which would be returned.

The federal government, on its part, undertook to compensate the bands for all lands which had been alienated: cutoff lands which had been sold to third parties and were therefore incapable of return to the Indian reserves. The Indian committee and representatives of the bands involved in those negotiations made it clear that they would not be expecting any individual who had acquired lands in this particular way to surrender them back to the Indian bands, but they would accept compensation in lieu thereof. That

[ Page 8747 ]

compensation was to be on the basis of a formula which incorporated land values at the time of sale. This proved to be a very serious stumbling block in these negotiations. Negotiations continued, and the bands expressed dissatisfaction with some portions of the offer, during which time two federal elections intervened and talks were unfortunately delayed as a consequence of changes in federal administration.

Early in 1981 members of the committee representing the 22 bands determined that the committee itself should be disbanded so that negotiations could be concluded between the bands individually and the federal and provincial governments. Notwithstanding the fact that the committee disbanded and left to the individual bands the conclusion of negotiations with respect to their particular reserves, the basic principles under which the settlements were to take place continued as I have enumerated them earlier.

On February 12, 1982, agreement was achieved with respect to the first of these settlements. I had the pleasure of meeting with Hon. John Munro, federal Minister of Indian Affairs, and with representatives of the Penticton Indian band, at which time the two levels of government signed the formal agreement which would resolve the Penticton Indian band reserve-cutoff problem. Under that agreement, the province will return 12,243 acres of cutoff land, which is still held as Crown land, and would pay to the Indian band the sum of $1 million as full payment for the land which it is to retain. This includes three small parks on the shores of Lake Okanagan. For its part, the federal government will pay the band $13,200,000 as compensation for the alienation of 1,800 acres of cutoff lands which were disposed to third parties. The agreement, signed in February 1982, was submitted to the members of the Penticton Indian band by way of referendum conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act, and the membership of the Penticton Indian band ratified the agreement which had been negotiated with their band leaders,

This is the first of what I expect will be agreements of a similar nature, affecting the other 21 bands which will see the earliest possible resolution of outstanding disputes with regard to these cutoff lands. In order to ensure that the agreements that are entered into properly dispose of this matter once and for all, this bill which is before us today gives the necessary authority to the government of the province of British Columbia to enter into these successive agreements, commencing with the Penticton band agreement, to pay the funds and to make use of Crown land — or both, as the circumstances may require — in order to conclude the negotiations. Companion legislation will also be introduced and enacted by the Parliament of Canada to like purpose. In this way, with each of the Indian bands expressing their agreement following negotiations — through a referendum process in which the band members will be involved — and the governments dealing in accordance with legislation authorizing the completion of those agreements, we will finally see the end of this problem. It began well before the turn of the century, by reason of activities associated with the creation of reserves and the disputes which arose thereby, and of the unfortunate failure on the part of the government of Canada to deal with the matter in 1916 and subsequent years, as was agreed when the McKenna-McBride commission was established,

We have many obligations to our native people stemming from periods long before the years of which I speak. I would hope that the good will and the sense of responsibility, which has been clear through the course of these negotiations over the past five years. will also apply to the resolution of those other difficulties which we will be facing in the eventual resolution of problems associated with our native people.

Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. LEVI: The official opposition will support the bill. I want to comment on some of the background, adding a little to what the Attorney-General has said with respect to what has been a long-standing, difficult problem.

I remember many years ago the former member for Atlin, Frank Calder, telling me a story that was part of the legend of his Nishga tribe. They used to tell a story of some time in the early 1800s. One day, while doing their various chores, they spotted a man who appeared to have three legs. They got very curious and went over to see this individual. It was a man who had a theodolite and he was surveying. They asked him what he was doing and he said: "Well, we're laying out a reservation," or a reserve, as we call it up here. They didn't quite understand what it was all about or what was he doing. Traditionally this was their land, and suddenly he was there carving up their reserve as per what a white man conceived they should really be entitled to.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things one realizes when you negotiate with Indian people over the years as the Attorney-General has done, and as I did when we were the government, is that the unique difference between Indian and non-Indian people is their perception of what land is. They talk about land in a way that we do not talk about it. They talk about it with great religious fervour. It is probably that more than anything that has kept up this constant fight going back almost 100 years, particularly with the Nishga people. But that's dealing with the Indian land claims. Certainly in the cut-off land question, after the delivery of the report by McKenna-McBride.... When one reads it and looks at the intent of the report, frankly, it was a brutally racist document. It was the white man imposing upon Indian people their standard of how they should live under a great deal of pressure from people who wanted land. These non-Indian people felt that they were more entitled to this land. Consequently, there were a great deal of problems.

I can remember Chief Stelkia of the Dog band near Penticton very well. He indicated he was going to block Highway 97 in protest against the loss of and the failure to return their cut-off land. They had lost, as I recall, some 70 acres but were given 16,000 acres in return, which were straight up a hill and of no value whatsoever to them. Half of the town of Okanagan Falls is made up of what was previously cut-off land. It wasn't until 1972, when the previous government came in, that a real approach was made by the government to do something about this problem on a provincial basis. I'm not now talking about Indian land claims; I'm talking about the cutoff lands. As we viewed the problem, it's difficult to separate the question of dealing with the cutoff lands and dealing with the land claims. We conceived, after many discussions with the Indian people, that we might come up with a process and formula that would help us with the cutoff lands that could later be applied to a future resolution of the Indian Land Claims Commission.

This is where, I think, in view of what the Attorney-General has told us. our approach differed quite radically from his. Fortunately we have a solution to the problem. I want to explain, because I think that one day somebody

[ Page 8748 ]

should write a book about this whole process. If you conclude it in a successful way, as the Attorney-General has indicated.... Certainly the settlement with the Penticton band has been settled. There are obviously more difficult settlements coming down the road. As these lands get closer to what we know as urban areas they become greater problems in terms of settlement value, how you evaluate the land and all that.

Our approach, if I may put it that way, Mr. Speaker, was that first of all the cutoff land question was purely a provincial question between the Indians and the province, because the province had the power to make the decision. We didn't need the federal government involved. What we said to the Indian people was: "We will deal with you directly, and then we'll go to the federal government and say, 'We have returned these lands. You got half the original property that was alienated. You participate on a cost-shared basis in that.' " We made it so that we would not deal with the federal government on cutoff lands; we would deal with the Indian people. What we did as a result of that was to set up a commission. We appointed Judge Ross Colver to chair it. Adam Eneas, the chief of the Penticton band, represented the Indian interests, and we had the former member for Alberni, John Squire, representing the government's position.

The only objective we had with that commission.... Some of the members that were here might recall that I came into the House on June 24 and made a statement. I will quote briefly from the statement. I said:

This is a memorandum of understanding between the Government of the Province of British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs cutoff lands committee.

(1) It is agreed that as a symbolic gesture of good faith the Government of British Columbia will return 100 acres of the cutoff lands that are alienated vacant Crown lands by September 1, 1975. The decision as to which bands will receive the land will be made by the Government of British Columbia.

(2) It is agreed the a cutoff lands committee will be constituted of three people....

That's what I just explained to you about the commission.

The Indians didn't want us just to tell them that we were going to do it; they wanted some gesture. We came up with the following: "We will return, as quickly as possible, 100 acres to some of the bands so we can show good faith." That was the process. What we were hoping to learn from that process was, as the Attorney-General has described, the whole question of evaluating alienated land; what you substitute for what's not possible to return.

The whole business that you have to deal with of land registry.... There was a whole, difficult process that we wanted to be able to learn about. What was the long-range objective? It wasn't just the settlement of the cutoff lands. We were attempting to get some movement in respect to the Indian land claims question itself, which goes beyond the cutoff lands. We were going to use that process. That's why we had set up the commission. We confined ourselves, again, in a gesture of good will. We understood that it was practical that we said that we would undertake to settle that question so we could move to agreements two years from June 1975.

I'd like to pause to ask the Attorney-General one thing. Is Mr. Prelypchan still doing a lot of the legal work in this?

When we got into the whole business of dealing with the Indian question, we were dealing with Indian people who were extremely well informed. They had an Indian Lands Claims Commission. We had a Mr. Borthwick who was with the Lands department, who really did some very excellent research. Later on we had a youngish lawyer — he's a little older now — Mr. Prelypchan, who took an interest in the whole question at that time and did some of the basic groundwork for us.

The important thing about the whole problem, which persisted for so many years, and what the Indians maintained was an insult to them, was the failure to consult. The Attorney-General referred to the legislation that flowed from the McKenna-McBride commission. The correspondence is interesting and reads like a history of the province: Meighen, who went for a short time to be prime minister; Pattullo, who was lands minister at the time; and the whole issue around consent. In those days governments didn't think much about consulting Indians; they knew best. That was the thing, I think, more than anything, on top of their incredible understanding and feeling for land, on which this battle was fought. It was long, it was arduous, it was not always something you could agree with. I appreciate very much the position that the Attorney-General was in over the years. It is not easy to try to right what really amounted to over 100 years of shameful conduct by some of the officials of this country, and we have to share in some of that responsibility. We have a long way to go before we do complete justice to our Indian citizens in this province.

I raised the issue of the difference in process — the way we did it as a government versus the way the present government has done it. It's seven years last June that the original memorandum of understanding was signed. Had we been able to move with some dispatch then — of course, there was a change of government and a different philosophy — no doubt settlements could have been done fairly quickly, and I suppose would have been less costly than now. It is going to be costly; nevertheless, it's an obligation that this government has and the government of Canada has. We took the position that the government of British Columbia could deal with this question without involving the federal government in any discussions; that we could simply go to them on the cost-shared approach afterwards.

Frankly, that was the way we approached it with other programs too, because we were aware that once you get involved in trying to get the federal government to agree to anything, you can set aside ten years and figure that maybe at the end of that ten years you might be lucky to settle it. What we were looking at was a settlement; then we would do the rest of the battle with the federal government. However, the government chose to do it the other way. The minister said there was originally a cutoff lands committee negotiating with the government, but they did say at that time — and I remember it very well — that eventually they wanted to move to individual bands negotiating their own land. That was fair enough. We needed a vehicle to start it off. All in all, it is very historical to be dealing with this legislation. We did try seven years ago to get it going, but that's in the past. The main thing is that we're still a long way from even the cutoff land settlements. Each one has to be negotiated separately. No one in the public should be critical of any of the process or, to some extent, of the cost. This is a long-standing obligation that we have towards Indian people and we've got to meet it. Otherwise, we cannot consider ourselves to be democratic or to believe in that system. An article in the Times-Colonist on Thursday, July 8, 1982, said: "Settling Debts Tough Times." The article ends on a bit of a plaintive plea. But there is absolutely no question that the Indians deserve to have their

[ Page 8749 ]

claim settled now. Non-Indians can only wish their governments had settled when everyone could afford it. Well, we all wish that. However, in this province it's only been in the last ten years that governments have addressed it. The previous Social Credit government took a long, very hard, stubborn stand and would not deal with it. Not often do we give plaudits to the government, but I might say this. We started off the process under the previous government, and to the credit of their government they picked it up. I was not happy, because I thought it was slow, but it's ended in this. We will pass the legislation.

I asked the minister if, when we're out of committee, he would table a copy of the agreement with the Penticton band, because presumably that document will be, to some extent, the pro forma for the other settlements. We would like to look at some of the.... It may not be, because they might be dealing with entirely different amounts of land or rural land versus urban land — well, that's going to be a really interesting one.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's a good day for us. It's a good start. We're at the beginning, I hope, of an eventual settlement. If the Indian people are skeptical, then one cannot blame them. It's actually taken us a hundred years to get to this point today. However, the government certainly has our support on this legislation.

MR. PASSARELL: To say the least, I'm very pleased with this bill. It's been 60 years of waiting, as the minister stated previously in his very long and detailed prepared speech that he read to the House in his opening address on this bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, you stated that this is the last time this matter will be discussed. I certainly hope so because we're discussing confiscation of land from the first citizens of this country by a committee 60-odd years ago. They stole it from them. Now we're debating a bill that should have been done 60 years ago. I'm pleased that the government has finally come in with this bill. It's been a long wait. I support it, and I'll be supporting the minister on this issue.

But there are some topics to be discussed about this. It was a confiscation, and now we're addressing it some 60 years later. Why? Are our feelings hurt? Have we lost pride to the native people of this province because of this commission that stole their land? Or are we looking at it as an election gimmick? I certainly hope that it's not the latter, because the native people of this province have waited a long time for any government to bring in some type of bill that addresses longstanding problems, and this particular issue is some 60 years old. I think that we have many more problems to address, that this bill is just the start. It's the tip of the iceberg when we start addressing problems of the native people, the first citizens of this province and this country.

It was three years ago in one of my original speeches that I was addressing the minister concerning statements that were made to the Nishga people six years ago. At that time the minister stood up and said that his government did not believe in land claims or aboriginal rights. Well, I certainly hope that the minister has had a change of thinking, because talking about confiscated land and what the commission did back in the early 1900s is just the tip of the iceberg.

We should be addressing a much broader problem. That's the confiscation of the aboriginal rights that were set out in 1763 by King George, in which he guaranteed the first citizens a right to aboriginal title. We've come back now with Bill 58, Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act.

In his opening address the minister mentioned adjusting boundaries. I would like the minister to clarify exactly what he means by adjusting boundaries. Was it the commission that adjusted boundaries? When we talk about the first citizens of this province, I think we have to look at a much broader aspect, and start addressing the real problem: land claims and aboriginal title.

I'd also like to ask the minister about a statement he made to the Nishga tribal council about six years ago. When are you going to fulfil the commitment you made to Chief Gosnell and the Indian band? You made a statement to the Nishga people about the problem of land claims and aboriginal rights. It's been six long years. When are you going to fulfill your promise to the Nishga people? You're the minister responsible for native affairs in this province. When are you going to start addressing the problems of aboriginal rights and land claims?

There are a couple of issues in the bill. Section 4 says:

"Transfers of land. Where an agreement provides for a transfer of land to Canada, it shall be made by a transfer of administration, control and benefit of the land under section 27 of the Land Act for the use and benefit of the Indian Band, and shall be subject to (a) the same exceptions and reservations as those contained in the order of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council, numbered 1036 of 1938, and (b) any lease or other interest existing in the land at the date of transfer."

I'd like the minister's thoughts on that as pertaining to aboriginal rights.

My second question concerns section 5: "Money to be paid out of consolidated revenue fund. Where an agreement provides for the payment of money, the money shall be paid to Canada out of the revenue fund for the use and benefit of the Indian band." Under this agreement. do the bands involved in the Indian Cut-off Lands Disputes Act have total control over that fund, or is it administered by Ottawa as Big Brother?

I'd like the minister's statements on those two issues.

In closing, I have to praise the minister on this bill; it's been a long time coming. I've been in this house for three short years, and it's the first reasonable bill concerning native people that I've seen — the second one, I should say; we had the Fort Nelson.... In my riding we have a bit of cutoff land outside of Kincolith.

My last question to the minister: now that you've been able, through your legal people, to bring about this bill, when are you going to sit down with the first citizens of this province and work out a true and everlasting settlement of the Indian land claims and aboriginal rights?

MR. LEGGATT: First. I'd like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous two speakers and congratulate the minister in beginning what will be a long and difficult process in attempting to resolve native land claims.

Questions still arise as to the responsibilities that we, as non-native citizens of this country, have to native citizens. Throughout this province there is a tremendous disparity in the economic success of various bands. Some are in terrible poverty, living a disgraceful existence by any measure you wish to use — United Nations measure or any other one. Others are doing very well.

[ Page 8750 ]

While we welcome this legislation as a beginning of settlement of an old and very grave wrong that has been committed against native citizens by those of us who came here from western Europe, we now have to do more than simply attempt to settle these claims. We have to assist those native groups who have the opportunity of assisting themselves. In many cases it's simply a matter of providing leadership and assistance to the band council. For example, native people in my own constituency occupy some of the most desirable lands, and yet they remain undeveloped and of no economic benefit to the few native residents who occupy those lands. Surely we can, in concert and by agreement, begin to provide economic help — not a handout, but the beginnings of economic success for these bands which live in extreme poverty throughout the province.

Certain questions have been asked of the minister, and I hope that in his summary he will direct his attention to them. One of my concerns continues to be section 5, which says: "Where an agreement provides for the payment of money, the money shall be paid to Canada out of the consolidated revenue fund for the use and benefit of the Indian band." It doesn't say for the use and benefit of the Indian band absolutely. This may be a federal trust provision that the minister has no control over, but the fact that native funds are not under exclusive control of native people hasn't always been of benefit to them. The amount of interest that native deposits have received at the federal level are really close to a national disgrace in the use of those funds — and the lack of revenues that native people have received.

Without looking askance at this, it's a desirable first step. The minister is to be congratulated. I think he does have considerable sensitivity to the native problem. We can be defined as a civilized society only to the extent that we treat our native people fairly. We have a chance in Canada and British Columbia to provide a different history than was provided in the United States. It's really one of our opportunities to say what we are as Canadians: that as Canadians we are a compassionate people who understand the injustices of the past and have the will to correct those injustices. If it means temporary political problems and if it means that we are going to have to use some of our resources to be fair, this is just the minimum that has to be done.

The theft of Indian lands by the McKenna-McBride scandal — to call that a commission is a misnomer — is a blot on the history of this province. It is a wrong that will live with us forever. Those boundaries were not adjusted, as the minister suggested; they were stolen. It was theft of Indian lands and theft of prime land all over this province. The motivation was sheer greed. The motivation was that we could take advantage of a weak administration in terms of the local band councils, and we did take advantage of them. It is a wrong that we all have to live with. I think the minister has made a very good first step in trying to redress some of the wrongs of the McKenna-McBride commission.

But we have to go beyond that and recognize that there is such a thing as an aboriginal right: that is, people who occupied these lands from time immemorial have a right to be compensated when they are taken away from them. Just as the British Crown signed treaties with native groups all across Canada.... Why did they sign those treaties? Obviously, they signed those treaties because we recognized that those native people had rights over those lands. We signed the treaties to extinguish those rights. To say now that there is no such thing as an aboriginal right is to deny the history of Canada, when the British Crown signed treaties all across this country attempting to extinguish those rights. There is a good deal of, I think, scaremongering going on by people who oppose aboriginal rights on the ground that, my gosh, we can't give the province back to native people. Native people aren't asking for that. They recognize that there are a very few native people appointed to the bench; it would be very unlikely that native people will make the ultimate decisions on what is fair compensation, but they do ask that that injustice be acknowledged and compensated for. The concept of aboriginal right — yes, and aboriginal title — is our opportunity here in Canada and here in British Columbia to say to the world that we, for the first time as western European colonizers, are going to treat the indigenous people with a sense of justice and fairness — yes, and we are going to apply the Christian ethic to settling those disputes.

I congratulate the minister for beginning. He has a long way to go, but I think and I hope that we in this chamber can reach a consensus that we have about a massive obligation to the first citizens of this province. It's about time we started to meet that obligation.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I too welcome this step in something that certainly is not an insurmountable problem, but one that is finally being addressed. I rise, I suppose, with some mixed feelings, because I am not convinced that all the injustices of the McKenna-McBride commission, or even some of the well-intentioned decisions of the McKenna-McBride commission, are going to be rectified by this act.

I note that in the interpretation section of this act it says that "cutoff lands means lands that had before 1916 been appropriated by the province for the use and benefit of Indians" but that pursuant to the Indian Affairs Settlement Acts of 1919 and 1920, and the report of the McKenna-McBride commission, had been cut off.... Well, I don't want to go into great detail, Mr. Speaker.

I have read portions of the McKenna-McBride commission, and I have them before me now. I would like the minister — and I think this is about the third time that I'm asking on behalf of the Lower Kootenay Indian band, located at Creston — to give some serious consideration to their claim that there are portions of land which are Indian cutoff lands. I direct the minister to the McKenna-McBride commission report, and if he looks at the map of the Kootenay agency in volume 2, which is the first fold-out map in there, he will see that the only sort of yellowish-brown coloured coded section that indicates cutoffs or reductions is in that area — the Lower Kootenay Indian band, at the south end of Kootenay Lake, near Creston.

Mr. Speaker, there was an order given in 1913, and I'm wondering what the minister means by "lands that before 1916 had been appropriated by the province for the use and benefit of Indians." Does he mean by that the official schedule of Indian reserves of 1913? This is rather loosely worded. I point out that this particular area, which I say is cutoff land, was first of all set out by the commission in an order of 1915; in fact, there was a minute of the commission on March 24, 1915, which confirmed that this particular piece of land, which is about 1,800 acres, would become part of the Indian reserve. But that was subsequently rescinded in a report which, I believe, was made in January 1916. The supposed reason for that deletion was that that land had been granted as a timber-harvesting licence or permit, I suppose in perpetuity at that time, to some people who actually had just taken over

[ Page 8751 ]

the land and displaced the Indians. But subsequently, of course, that land has not been in forestry production for probably 50 years.

Another thing that I'd like the minister to recognize is that a large portion of that land was unalienated. Recently I think several hundred acres were given to the town of Creston for the purpose of building an airport. I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) at the time, yet the government has gone blithely on and has ignored the claim of these people and has interpreted that they are not part of the cutoff lands group. I don't think they were identified as part of the cutoff lands group when we were government, and while I've met with the band chief and members of the band council on numerous occasions, I'm not so certain that even they were aware of this particular thing.

I've even read a transcript of the hearing which took place back in 1916. It's very blurred, I guess it's been duplicated so many times; it's very, very hard to read. I have made available to the band a copy of the royal commission report, at least volume 2, which mostly encompasses their particular case. I would like the minister, in closing, to tell me if the door is indeed closed to the Lower Kootenay Indian band or whether some very serious consideration will be given, and whether they will be heard. It's not a matter of the Lower Kootenay Indian band pursuing this vigorously with the government; I think the government has to pursue this vigorously with the band. The onus is on us. The lands they were given — there were a few adjustments made at that time — were all swamp lands. Because of the Libby Dam and because of some dyking improvements which were made years and years later for other interests, those lands have now become valuable agricultural lands, but at the time they were given to them they were very poor lands. The commission report points out that they would only be useful if dyking and drainage works were put in place, and it's recommended that the government do this. Well, those things were never done.

I would hope that if this act is to address the issue of cutoff lands.... That's one thing I've always felt was certainly a manageable task as a starting point in terms of native land claims. I would like to know if the government will vigorously pursue and take government to the people and meet with the Lower Kootenay Indian band and set up meetings and listen and look at this. I have looked at the reports several times. I don't pretend to be a lawyer and I'm certainly not a judge, so it doesn't have any bearing on what the resolution of this matter is going to be, but I say that it is worthwhile that the government should pursue this, and that these people shall always have to pursue this until some justice is given in this particular case.

I will say this about the McKenna-McBride report: these are two of the volumes, and if some of the royal commissions that have been done in recent days were done with this thoroughness, at least people might have a chance to unravel things several years later. I think that documentation is contained in this report as the basis of some kind of fair settlement.

The Lower Kootenay Indian band has been excluded, but I report to the minister again that according to the mapping of this, lands were cut off from the Lower Kootenay Indian band. Minutes of the commission of 1915, which is prior to the date set out in this act, indicated that a decision had been made to give them lands, but those lands were later withdrawn. I report that those requests were obviously in in 1913, and these were long-standing claims. Yet these people are not a party to the list of negotiations that you have before you. I urge that they be included.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Many of the questions posed today during the course of this debate should more properly be dealt with at the committee stage of the bill. However, I'm very happy to respond to them if there's some indication that we would move to committee by leave now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. If the debate would be more orderly in committee, perhaps we could move to committee immediately and then at least have orderly debate. Is that agreed?

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister has asked leave.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There is some indication that leave may be granted if I respond during the course of this debate. That can be done very easily, Mr. Speaker, because as far as the principle of this bill is concerned, I think members on all sides of the House accept it. I think there needs to be something said in clarification, and I'm sorry if, in my opening remarks, I was not as clear as members might have wished.

First of all, this bill is not a bill which touches upon the question of aboriginal rights, aboriginal title or general Indian land claims, as those issues have come to be spoken of in this country in the past decade. This bill deals with the resolution of a very particular problem which affects some Indian reserves, and as such does not fall within the aboriginal claims issue. I might say, however, that I'm sure members in this chamber — indeed members in the legislatures of each of the provinces, and members in the House of Commons and in the Senate of Canada — will have, over succeeding months and years, adequate opportunity to express themselves on that particular question. The issue of aboriginal rights and aboriginal title, as those expressions are defined, for each person, will require the consideration of the people of Canada for some considerable time. I can assure this House that the government of British Columbia will be involved in the meetings at the national level to deal with these matters, commencing I believe next February.

The member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) asked when I was going to sit down and talk with the Nishga people about the matters we began to discuss on January 12, 1976. Officials of this government and officials of successive governments in Ottawa have met with the Nishga people; indeed, officials at both levels of the government are meeting with representatives of the Nishga band on July 22 to continue the discussions which have been taking place over the years. There has been no resistance on the part of the government of British Columbia to meet at any time with the Nishgas and with their federal counterparts, and we look forward to the continuing discussions. I believe the meetings on July 22 will deal with the subject of the fishery resource, which is one of the elements of the Nishga claim.

Some statements were made during the course of debate about the McKenna-McBride agreement and the McKenna-McBride commission. I suppose it depends on how one views the work done by that commission, but I was startled at the severity with which some of the members spoke of it. The word "confiscation" was used, and words importing to Mr. McKenna and Premier McBride an attitude with respect to

[ Page 8752 ]

their work which, as I read the history, is not justified, It might be true if you looked at the debates that took place in 1919 and 1920 in the federal House and Senate with respect to this legislation. It might be true if you examine some of the correspondence that passed between the then government of British Columbia and the government of Canada on this issue of getting the consent of the Indians, which was stipulated by McKenna-McBride — no reduction without consent. If you were to read some of those debates and some of that correspondence, you might have some reason to speak critically, but I don't think McKenna-McBride are themselves entitled to the kind of criticism that has been levied against them today.

It talks about boundary adjustments. It was a very rough approach on a population basis with the evidence which was available to the McKenna-McBride commission in the years 1912 to 1916. Things were not as sophisticated then as they are today. If they failed in their objective, I don't believe they are to be criticized, when one recognizes the difficulty there was in travelling about this province and the difficulties that existed in meeting with the Indian bands, identifying who the bands were and indeed identifying where the reserves were. For those bands that didn't have any reserves at all at that time and who were entitled to reserves under the terms of the commission, they were under extreme difficulty. I do ask the members to recognize that, as a result of the commission's recommendations, about three times as much land was added to reserves, or made available to reserves, than was withdrawn. Eighty-seven thousand acres were made available to the Indian bands as the result of those recommendations; only 33,000 were removed.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) indicated that we would be approaching some settlement problems which would be difficult because of the proximity of the reserves to urban areas and the problems of evaluation. Let me hasten to say that the Penticton reserve cut-off problem is not a simple one, and it took us directly into the area to which the member makes reference. The 1,800 acres which had been disposed of, and could not be returned, are indeed in the heart of downtown Penticton. This was one of the difficulties that the negotiators faced with the evaluation of those lands, which are now part of a major urban centre. So we've approached those, and we think we have learned, from the techniques used in the Penticton settlement, much of what will assist us as we deal with other bands in urban areas.

That's not to say that the identification of settlements for those bands in the rural outlying areas and the remote areas of the province is going to be that much easier. Over the years transmission line rights-of-way and gravel pits, etc., have impinged upon those far northern reserves, and the evaluation of compensation will have to be carefully undertaken.

I do want to make one thing clear. I mentioned in the course of my opening remarks that the committee formed by the 22 Indian bands for the purpose of these negotiations disbanded. I would not wish it to be thought that this decision was made by the two levels of government and that we refused to deal with the committee; indeed, it was the decision of the Indian bands themselves. The committee had done the task that it set out to do. It carried the negotiations to a stage where the necessary differences arising from the problems of settlement with each band made it appropriate that the negotiations then proceed on a band-for-band basis. They had resolved the general principles upon which settlements would be founded. We then got to the stage where the decisions with regard to what the Penticton settlement should be would naturally be determined by their band leaders in the same way that other Indian bands would deal with particular incidents associated with their band settlements.

Now as to the question of the money, the money that has been paid or is payable with respect to the Penticton settlement.... A million dollars comes from the provincial government. That money has been paid. It's presently being held in trust, and it will be held in trust until such time as federal legislation is passed. The income from that million dollars will go into the band's revenue account. Therefore it is immediately available to them: it's under their control. I am advised that the million dollars will go into the band's capital account and then falls under the rules that are established by the federal department. The same, I understand, will be the case with respect to the $13.2 million which goes from the federal government into the settlement.

I share the concern of the members who have spoken on this issue. For too long, I believe, the federal department has exercised a paternalistic attitude towards the funds of Indian bands. Many Indian bands have shown themselves to be fully adept at dealing with their own properties. Indeed, they've been encouraged to do this by the federal government. Yet when they have the opportunity to deal with large sums of money to be used in the interests of the band, the federal government seems reluctant to allow them to obtain the kind of qualified advice that is available. I think this is a mistake. They are having continuing discussions on this issue, spearheaded by the Indians at Sechelt, who have an admirable plan, and by the Indians at Fort Nelson, who this very afternoon are dealing with this problem at meetings in Vancouver with federal and provincial officials. I hope they will be successful in convincing the federal government that their attitudes of paternalism with respect to these funds should be radically changed.

The legislation is really quite clear with respect to the use of land; it is a result of our discussions with Indian bands during the course of negotiations. The Indians clearly indicated that they would like to have the lands returned to them. When we pointed out to them that in some instances those lands have been encumbered by leases, the Indians said: "We are quite prepared to take our lands back with the leases still in place. We will act as the landlords with respect to those leasehold interests, and as they expire we will renew them or whatever, as the case may be." We are about to proceed with negotiations with the Squamish band, which involved some very significant leasehold interests. The Squamish band has said: "We have no difficulty in dealing with those matters. We can act as landlords just as well as the provincial government." That is why the legislation permits us — it isn't mandatory — to transfer the lands with leasehold interests involved.

The member for Nelson-Creston has raised the issue of the Lower Kootenay Indian band with me, and I apologize for not responding at an earlier date. We have examined all documents and maps that define the Indian cut-off land problem, and we cannot identify the Lower Kootenay Indian band as a participant in this particular difficulty. We've been through all the correspondence; we've referred to the various orders-in-council associated with this particular matter, and we have been unable to identify that the Lower Kootenay Indian band and the lands to which you refer fall within the ambit of the cut-off land problem.

[ Page 8753 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member asks if that is the end of it. The answer is no. In dealing with Indian land matters, we find from experience that indeed there never is an end. I have no hesitation in saying to the member that if the leaders of the Lower Kootenay Indian band have any material they would like to present to me which they believe establishes their entitlement to become part of the Indian cut-off land matter, or if they have any other claim to those lands as part of their reserve, they will find me a ready and willing listener.

Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave to refer Bill 58 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration now.

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move Bill 58 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few remarks before moving second reading of this bill. In the last few years energy has emerged and certainly remains today as one of the most critical issues of our age, not only here in British Columbia but everywhere in the world. Bearing this in mind, the provincial government moved in 1980, as part of its program to work toward energy security for British Columbia, to restructure responsibilities for managing the province's energy resources. One of the major components of the restructuring was the establishment of the British Columbia Utilities Commission through the B.C. Utilities Commission Act of that year.

The introduction and passage of that legislation marked a new era in energy management for the province. It provided the tools with which the government, in consultation with the people of the province, could begin to manage our energy future in an effective and responsible manner. I think I could say, Mr. Speaker, without any fear of contradiction that the legislation has been recognized across North America as a first-class vehicle for ensuring that energy development and use is addressed in a comprehensive manner, taking into account the benefits and costs of projects and making certain they meet both the short- and long-term goals and needs of our province.

This amendment bill now before the House is designed to make us even better able to fulfil that mandate of energy stewardship and to work toward our goal of energy security. A very important provision of the bill is for the careful scrutiny of takeovers and mergers of utilities. It's the government's position that utilities are established and regulated for the benefit of the general public and the customers which they have the responsibility to serve. A utility's corporate structure and ownership, therefore, must be subject to scrutiny and, where necessary, subject to control to ensure that the public interest is served.

Three new sections amplify the provisions of the old act in this regard. First of all, recognizing that share issues are as important a way of raising capital as borrowing, the commission's approval is required for all ways that utilities raise capital. This extends the provisions of the old act from the scrutiny of borrowing alone. Secondly, the commission must examine and approve concentration of ownership by an individual or individuals acting in association of more than 20 percent of the shares of a utility. Thirdly, mergers and takeovers of utilities must be reviewed by the commission and, if found to be beneficial in the public interest, recommended to cabinet for final approval. The bill provides for these changes to have the force of law effective immediately.

In addition, the legislation enacts new. more flexible rules relating to the sale of surplus power services. These changes are designed to remove institutional barriers to the development of power, including electricity and heat, by private surplus energy producers. Private power has an importance to the province's energy and industrial fabric which goes far beyond its relatively small — about 5 percent — proportion of British Columbia's total electrical capacity now.

In the Utilities Commission Act of 1980 some provision was made to allow for private electrical producers to sell power which was surplus to their own needs. However, this gave no encouragement to development which served the needs of both private industry and other power consumers, and it was limited to electricity. With the increasing costs of energy and the growing attention being applied to conservation and careful stewardship of our resources now, it is desirable to take a more positive and future-oriented approach, not only to remove the institutional barriers to private power sales but to provide encouragement to new developments and to new technologies.

The changes will broaden the types of eligible power producers from industrial to all kinds of companies and to all kinds of power, including electricity, steam and heat. In this regard the amendments will streamline the procedures of the 1980 act, which involved the review and agreement of the Utilities Commission and cabinet before significant amounts of power could be sold.

In addition we will provide an independent price-setting mechanism to replace the unilateral purchasing power of B.C. Hydro and a price-mediation mechanism to assist private bargaining and allow for the approval for purchase of privately generated power before the development has been installed.

Another important change, Mr. Speaker, is one which will provide for the expertise and, if warranted, the financial assistance of government to someone proposing a private power development. This is already started in some pilot studies and test cases: the change we propose will formalize this framework.

The bill also provides for changes in the provisions which now regulate the petroleum industry. These provisions have never been fully required. Existing regulation of trading standards will now become the responsibility of the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs under their legislation. At the same time, provisions relating to emergency regulation and allocation of petroleum products are placed in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act.

[ Page 8754 ]

These emergency demand-restraint measures allow for flexibility, so that if the emergency is national in scope, the province is able to integrate its emergency responses with the programs undertaken by federal authorities, while also retaining the ability to respond to our own emergencies, should they occur within the province.

Another change in the legislation would allow the designation of a single commissioner to conduct a one-person hearing into energy matters under the act. Such a designation would be made by me or by the chairman of the commission.

At present no latitude exists for the appointment of a single commissioner hearing. Situations may arise where advice on a specific subject matter is sought, and a one-person commission would be more appropriate than — or at least just as satisfactory as — a three-or-more-person commission. For example, the natural gas surplus inquiry conducted by Dr. George Govier was set up by necessity, because we weren't allowed to do it under the provisions of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Act.

We also propose to amend the legislation to authorize the minister to invite applications for energy project and removal certificates. As the natural gas allocation-process proposal call procedures illustrate, if the best project is to be selected, then competing applications should be identified and compared in a common time-frame. Unless there is the power to call for competing applications within a specified period, each application must be treated separately, which is overly regulatory and bureaucratic in many ways. In addition, comparison of competitive projects is impossible, unless applications are submitted voluntarily, and this doesn't necessarily allow the choice of the best possible project.

A number of smaller changes have also been made to improve the act. They include, for example, simplification of the duties of the secretary of the commission, tightening of some enforcement measures and their consolidation in one section, allowing the Utilities Commission to specify the information it requires in applications for certificates of public convenience or necessity, and enabling the costs of regulation to be recovered when these costs should not fall upon the general taxpayers of the province.

To summarize, Mr. Speaker, the changes I have outlined and the other measures in the act which will be debated as we move into committee stage have been designed to further enhance the quality of the existing legislation and to strengthen areas where we believe some weaknesses exist at the present time. I move second reading of Bill 66.

MR. D'ARCY: I want to compliment the minister on the good reading job of the speech. This is essentially a committee bill, but I do have some remarks to make on it in second reading.

First of all, the changes which permit the Utilities Commission and the government to allow private industry in the province to have a much freer rein in the sale of surplus power, whether it be to utilities or to direct consumers, are changes that we in the opposition welcome. Indeed, it's a change that we have been asking for for a number of years. It was clearly in our brief to the Utilities Commission relative to the Cominco and West Kootenay Power applications last August in Kelowna.

I would also like to add that the provisions will allow industry to, hopefully, get into the business of localized electrical generation and small hydro in industrial operations on an at-site basis. With some knowledge of what the ground rules are going to be further down the road.... One of the complaints we are constantly hearing from industry in British Columbia is that this government has allowed itself far too much discretion to change the ground rules midway through an investment decision having been made, and this makes it very difficult for industry to plan ahead. They do not want to be in a position where goalposts can be moved or anything can be changed, as the saying goes, in the fourth quarter. I certainly related to those concerns, particularly in these economic times.

I note that the changes in the takeover aspects as they relate to the TMA bid on Inland Natural Gas are clearly closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Our concern in the opposition is not that this or any government should have any unreasonable powers in terms of interfering in the marketplace. What we are concerned about is that where you have a regulated monopoly dealing with a public resource — which is what you're dealing with in a utility — the interests of residential, industrial and commercial consumers will be protected and there will be no increase in the cost of a service or energy product to the consuming public as a result of a takeover bid. I think the government has realized that and has moved to protect the public in that regard, but we don't know that the public was protected up to this point. We in the opposition certainly hope that the interests of consumers in the southern part of the province who are purchasing natural gas will be protected. I might point out that when we talk about consumers, we're not talking about just homeowners but about a number of major industries which have to compete in the rather difficult international marketplace of today,

I would like to express a concern about the government's stated intention to remove petroleum pricing, except in the production of crude, from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and put it into the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This government has shown a rather distressing tendency towards giving what could be called, as I said earlier, regulated monopolies a chance to deregulate things which are not necessarily in the public interest. I'm somewhat concerned with the record of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of deregulating prices; that getting hold of the question of petroleum pricing in B.C. could well result, again, in actions by the industry which are not in the best interests of industry and consumers in general in the province of B.C. I quite frankly am more inclined to trust the good judgment of the Utilities Commission than policy formed by politicians, whether they be in that government or in some future government of B.C.

With those remarks, I would certainly welcome seeing the minister move second reading of this bill once again.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We've been anticipating this legislation for some time, haven't we, Mr. Minister? You did indicate earlier this year that legislation would be coming in. Quite frankly, in general terms we're pleased to see it. But this legislation does give me the opportunity to ask the minister a couple of questions. Perhaps they would be better put in third reading, but I may not be here for that.

I want to ask the minister a few questions relating to the proposed natural gas line and fertilizer plant through Powell River and to Vancouver Island. I notice that a portion of this bill deals with allowing the minister to appoint a single commissioner if required. Generally speaking, if the minister decides to appoint that person under the utilities act to take

[ Page 8755 ]

charge of those hearings, to look at the economic and environmental impact of the proposed natural gas line and all the other factors involved in that proposal, that's fair enough. The only caution that I give to the minister at this time in that regard is that I hope that person will not be a political appointment, but someone whom both sides of the House can have confidence in, and that the hearings will be conducted in a totally impartial manner.

I don't want to rub salt into the minister's wounds, because we've done that so often in this House, particularly this year. I raise that question because I'm afraid that the minister's past performance in regard to the proposed natural gas line to Vancouver Island, which this act deals with in some ways....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What section?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Try section 2 and section 3.

The minister was, for some years — almost a year and a half, at any rate — adamant that B.C. Hydro was going to get the natural gas line to Vancouver Island. For some reason unknown to me, the minister has changed his mind.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, but I've got to talk about this natural gas line every chance I get. I've got a lot of votes up there in Powell River that I want to keep.

The minister did change his mind. I'm guessing it was a cabinet decision. I'm suggesting that we're now going to have a Utilities Commission and a commissioner hearing at some point. Is the minister going to name a commission or commissioner soon? We have almost 5,000 people unemployed in Powell River, and they're very anxious that we get on with the hearings to see if it's viable to build a fertilizer plant, which would employ possibly 350 people in that community. So I'm asking the minister that question.

My primary question is: How soon will that commissioner be appointed? The minister told me yesterday, Mr. Speaker, but I want to get it on record that I asked him the question yesterday.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Mackenzie, I have said....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I was under the understanding that the minister was responding to the member for Mackenzie. I have a question for the minister, which I would....

MR. SPEAKER: We are in second reading, hon. member. We are debating the principle of the bill. Perhaps the question could be asked in committee.

MR. HANSON: No, I think the nature of my question is very brief, and I'd like to make it now.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I defer, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In second reading, the minister defers to the second member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: It's my understanding that part of the mandate of the Utilities Commission is to regulate corporations such as B.C., Hydro in a fair and equitable way. I've raised this matter before in the House, and I would like to take this opportunity briefly to raise it again. The fact is that we do not have access to natural gas on Vancouver Island, particularly in Victoria, and we're presently being penalized by B.C. Hydro in that they are passing all of the costs onto our air-butane customers. They're presently paying three and half times what they are paying on the mainland for natural gas. I'd like to ask the minister if he feels that it would be appropriate to raise this with the Utilities Commission or if we should ask a commissioner to investigate this inequity.

Clearly, it is through no fault of the people on Vancouver Island that the pipeline doesn't exist. It may not exist for some years: we don't know. The fact is that there are 5,000 customers, including a lot of small businesses, restaurants and laundry companies, etc., who are paying that extra cost. Our position is that it should be absorbed by the entire Hydro gas grid. I'm wondering if the minister would respond to my question. Would he undertake to look into this matter and perhaps make a recommendation, either through a commissioner or to the commission, on some solution to this inequity?

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate. rather than making any further comments, I'd like to take the opportunity to answer the questions that were raised, the last one by the second member for Victoria.

The difference in the prices paid by Victoria customers and those paid in other parts of the Hydro operation, primarily in the lower mainland of British Columbia, are well known and have been made known to the commission. There is not in British Columbia, as some people believe, a postage stamp rate for natural gas in the province. There are a lot of parts of the province where there are different rates charged, because it costs different amounts of money to deliver that gas to different customers.

As the member knows, Mr. Speaker, B.C. Hydro is for the first time in its history undergoing a full rate evaluation by the B.C. Utilities Commission. It has never had to go through that ordeal — or opportunity, I guess, depending on your point of view — before in its life. It is a very difficult and complicated hearing. It happens to be under adjournment at the present time for a short period, because of the illness of one of the commissioners. I expect that the hearing will get on in an expeditious way. Those are the areas that the B.C. Utilities Commission will be looking at — those kinds of anomalies. They'll want Hydro's response.

I would suggest that it would be fully appropriate for an MLA or a group of MLAs to put a submission in to those hearings, if you haven't already.

MR. HANSON: I have done that already.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, well that's the proper course of action. I think the commission will take whatever action it believes is necessary in order to hold both the customer and Hydro whole, because they have two responsibilities. I believe that's the correct course of action for an MLA to take.

[ Page 8756 ]

I'm looking forward to the ongoing relationship between the B.C. Utilities Commission and B.C. Hydro. I think it will be healthy for all British Columbians, and particularly those users of energy who depend on Hydro for that use.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is interested in the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island and so am I. I can only say that with the passage of this legislation it will make it easier for me to choose a commissioner who can hear this question. I guarantee the member that we will choose a commissioner on only one basis, and that will be his expertise, knowledge and willingness to serve the people of British Columbia. I hope to be able to find an absolutely top-notch person who will come in with a totally unbiased view. There's no doubt, Mr. Member, that I do not have a totally unbiased view. I haven't changed my mind about what I think is the best way to bring gas to Vancouver Island, but because a lot of people asked, including you and communities up and down Vancouver Island, I'm willing to have a public hearing. I've said that we will have that public hearing, and it will be a fair, impartial and full public hearing. We will do that, Mr. Speaker. I intend to make that name known very quickly. I've said right from the beginning that it will be this summer, and I intend to ensure that it is this summer.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The faster you let me out of here, the sooner we'll go out looking for good people.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got some names for you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, you can't do it.

Mr. Speaker, I'll start at the beginning of the questions raised by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy). He wanted to know whether industry will be allowed to get into localized power generation. Yes, we think that there can be some localized power generation in the future, particularly with small hydro. We intend to pursue that very vigorously over the next few years. We also have some need, though, to protect the future power source. B.C. Hydro has a responsibility not only to provide power today but to ensure that there is a strong and stable supply of power for those who follow us. So we've got to balance the opportunity for us to gather in other kinds of power generation, which may not be as reliable over as long a period of time as Hydro would like, with the need to develop a little different syndrome than the big power project syndrome that I admit has been in place in British Columbia for many years.

The changes in the act allow us a little better control over takeovers and share transfers of regulated utilities. I agree that in some ways it is closing the door after the horse has bolted, but at least it is closing the door.

The member will be interested that the decision on the TMA takeover by the B.C. Utilities Commission came down today. I commend it to him for reading. I think you'll see that the commission, even with the legislation it has in place at the present time, has taken its responsibility very seriously. I just ask you to make sure that you get a chance to read that.

In the matter of petroleum and the whole area of petroleum pricing and everything like that, it is a retail business. It's never been touched by the commission or by the old Energy Commission before it. It's a piece of legislation that has been on the books and was never used. I've taken out the pieces that concern energy more than anything else and put them in appropriate places. If the need arises at some future time for price regulation regulation of that nature, which is purely a consumer matter, then I believe that the Consumer Affairs ministry can look after it okay. So we've taken that approach.

I might just say that it is not our intention to proclaim those sections of the act until there is protection in some other areas. We'll hold off the proclamation until we're sure that we're covered. We don't want to be snooping in everybody's service station. I suppose that's the reason why the section has never been used. We want to get government out of people's lives a little bit.

Just in case, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading again.

Bill 66, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

VANCOUVER CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 64; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: 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 64, Vancouver Centennial Celebration Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to second reading of Bill PR401.

Leave granted.

SEABOARD ASSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1953, AMENDMENT ACT, 1982.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been through the private bills committee and has been considered by all sides of the House in that committee. In essence, the bill is increasing the authorized capital for the company which is always necessary in any corporation so it has flexibility of doing financing, of entering into various contracts made for acquisitions of assets, either through the issuing of shares or, if necessary, for raising capital to purchase assets with cash. In addition, it provides for continuance of the company, should it be allowed to do so, through provisions in federal legislation.

Both of these amendments are generally allowable for any ordinary corporation incorporated under the companies

[ Page 8757 ]

legislation of this province. On that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I just would like to ask whether we're going to break Seaboard again this time.

Motion approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill PR401, Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SEABOARD ASSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1953, AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections I to 8 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: 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 PR401, Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953, Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

On vote 51: minister's office, $249,538.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to take my place in this debate and talk about the great Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development.

Before I start, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that again during the past year I have been served by a very efficient, loyal and devoted staff in the ministry. I consider myself very fortunate....

MR. HALL: If they work for you they have to be devoted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's a matter of opinion. But I feel that way too; yes, they have to be devoted. They're devoted to the great cause and policies of this government, in bringing, economic expansion and opportunities to the province of British Columbia.

I must say that I'm also very pleased to pass on a word of thanks to my efficient secretary, who looks after me during the course of the year and, as I've said before, is at my beck and call whether it's 12 o'clock at night or on the weekend. She's always there — when she's home — to look after me and to promote the interests of the great province of British Columbia.

I also have to give a word of thanks to the very devoted staff at the British Columbia Development Corporation and, of course, that independent board of directors of the Development Corporation made up of businessmen who are devoting their time and effort to serve the people of the province of British Columbia. I must say that in my humble opinion they're dome an excellent job of managing the affairs of the Development Corporation.

It goes without saving that I want to again pass on a word of thanks to the independent board of directors of the great British Columbia Railway and its president and chief executive officer. Mr. Macorris. I'm proud to stand in this Legislature and say.... You know, that little railway was the laughing-stock of British Columbia just a few years ago. I can remember spending hour after hour in this Legislature debating the British Columbia Railway. I suppose that probably, in the next week or so, depending on how long my estimates go. we may have some debate on the British Columbia Railway. but I hasten to say that I am certainly very pleased with the work of that independent board of directors and all of the employees.

I'll just move right along now. There are so many things that I want to talk about. I said that I would table certain documents in this Legislature.

MR. LEGGATT: The cost-benefit analysis.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the cost-benefit analysis, but before I table the cost-benefit analysis I want to say a few words.

I would like to remind the members of this Legislature that northeast coal is the best researched, most painstaking project ever undertaken in the whole world. It is my duty to ensure that the people of this province are kept fully informed of the content and the results of these studies. There has never been a project undertaken anywhere in the whole world that has had so much study, and here the minister in charge has taken such pains to ensure that the opposition and people of the province were informed about the benefits of all these studies. Just to remind you — and I certainly don 't wish to be repetitive — last year on May 28, when my estimates were up for discussion and debate in this Legislature, I tabled in this Legislature a report on coal resource evaluation studies, a report on exploration in British Columbia, a report on geological field work, the "Northeast Coal Study — Preliminary Report on Transportation Developments," "A Study of Options for Railroad Access to Peace River Coal Fields," "Supplemental Work to a Study of Options for Railroad Access to Peace River Coal Fields," "A Study of Options for Railroad Access to Peace River Coal Fields," "Supplemental Analysis: Comparison of Revised Rail Routes — Chetwynd South via Tunnels and Anzac East." A stack of studies that high was tabled in the library so the people of the province would be fully informed about this great project.

[ Page 8758 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

We have been unjustly accused — and If I were allowed to say so, I would say erroneously....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're permitted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm permitted to say erroneously. We have been erroneously charged with not keeping the public informed. I want to give you just a few more of the fantastic studies we've tabled: "Northwest Coal Access, Section 3, Gwillim Lake to Tumbler Ridge Highway Routes — A Comparative Review".... My gracious, did we ever study this project.

MR. LEGGATT: You didn't answer any questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Answer the questions, my friend? You expect me to do your homework for you? I suggest to you, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody, that you go to the library and do your homework. Don't expect me to do it. That is what you, as an MLA, are paid for: to do your homework. I'll certainly cooperate. I'm quite willing to answer any questions you may wish me to answer. But I would suggest that you be more cautious in your statements. You must be reasonable. Above all, you must be responsible. I think you have been irresponsible from time to time. You have erroneously tried to mislead the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I won't say it. I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this moment I will ask the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody not to interject, and I ask the hon. Minister of Industry and Small Business Development to address the Chair, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't knowingly do otherwise. But I may get carried away from time to time with exuberance at all these great reports that I have here for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) talks about commie reports. I don't know what he does with them. Maybe they study them when they are in caucus. It could be.

Members of the opposition will have delivered to their desks a resume of all the great programs we have had over the past years. It sets out how this government has not been biased in assisting small industry and business, and what has happened in each of your constituencies with regard to the delivery of the programs administered by this ministry.

MR. LEA: My first question is, what year was that picture taken?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That is a very recent picture, Mr. Member for Prince George.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would bring the members opposite to order. I know that they're getting excited about the picture in the little brochure, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, there's a ball game on — the all-star game.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I thought you were more interested in playing golf than watching.... Is it the golf all-star game that's on, Mr. Member?

I want to tell you in all seriousness about some more reports that we've studied: "Northeast Coal Development Project"; "A Study of Coal-Dust Contamination of Canadian Cellulose's Watson Island (Prince Rupert) Pulpmill from the Operation of a Coal Terminal on Ridley Island and Coal Unit Train Access and Egress to the Proposed Terminal: Phase One — Problem Definition, Volume I and Appendix; Phase Two — Mitigating Measures." We have studied the coal-dust problem, even though experience tells us that we have moved approximately 12 to 14 million tons of coal a year from the southeast of the province through some very sensitive farmland down to Roberts Bank, and we have all the technology needed to ensure that the areas through which this coal will move will not have any problems with coal dust. But we did a special study up in Prince Rupert and Watson Lake to ensure that there wouldn't be any problems up there. We have spared no horses in order to ensure that the problems of moving northeast coal to market were well studied, so that we could do our planning and carry on with this great project.

We have done "Environmental Aspects of Proposed BCR Anzac-Quintette Branch Line," volumes I and 2. In other words, it wasn't like they used to build railroads in the old days, where you went in and decided where you wanted to build a rail line, and the engineers went in and laid out the line; then the bulldozers came in and laid the track, and somebody else came in and laid the ties, and somebody else laid the steel. We've had environmental studies as to where the line was to go to make sure that we wouldn't cross any moose paths, so that there would be a place for the wild ungulates to get through there in the winter and in the spring when they were migrating and in order to protect the environment, so that future generations will still be able to go into that great Peace River area and have all the environmental aspects that might have been a problem a few years ago.

Not too long ago, when we built the railroad extension from Prince George into Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, there was no such thing in those days as an environmental study. We went ahead and built the rail line, and I want to tell you the moose were still there — except those that got taken by the wolves, that is. We have a wolf problem up there too. The deer were running around, and a couple of years ago we had lots of rabbits — they go in a seven-year cycle — and all of the other wildlife that were there. The fish were still in the streams and we didn't have any environmental problems. But to make sure there was going to be no environmental damage done by northeast coal, we did an environmental study.

I can remember, Mr. Chairman, when the Alaska Highway was built. We built that 1,578 miles of highway right from Dawson Creek to Fairbanks, Alaska, and there wasn't one environmental study. You can drive up that highway and there's beautiful scenery and the environment has hardly been touched, because it's such vast country. All of the sheep are still there and....

[ Page 8759 ]

MR. LEGGATT: The deer and the antelope play.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The deer and the antelope play. All of those wild ungulates are still there and thriving. That was over 40 years ago; but because of the concerns of the generation today, we've done all those environmental studies on northeast coal.

I remember when they developed all those great coalmines down in the southeast. There were no environmental studies done, but this little government did ensure that those people put a bond up, and they were told how to replace the mountains with beautiful fields and lakes and plant grass and all that. I've been down there. They've done a fantastic job, Mr. Chairman.

But just to ensure that we've done a little better this time, we've done all these studies and filed another report from the environment and land use subcommittee. "Northeast Coal Study — Preliminary Environmental Report on Proposed Transportation Links and Townsites," to ensure that nature would be left intact and to see if there were any mitigation we could have — a little bit here and a little bit there — so that all of the natural wildlife would be left for future generations.

The environment of that great area down there, close to the mountains and foothills.... It's exciting being up there. You stand there on the site of a new townsite and look west toward the mountains, and you see the snow on the hills. We wanted to leave it that way, so we've done all those environmental studies. Is that ever going to be pleasant down there for all those workers! Just a few miles away they've got the falls on the Murray River, the Kinuseo Falls. They're beautiful falls. They're breathtaking. You stand at the face of the falls and watch the water plummeting over there, higher than Niagara Falls, all there for the future generations for workers in the coalfield to see.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there you go. When it freezes in the wintertime, you'd almost think that it was going the other way. I've been there in the wintertime and have watched that frozen ice. As a matter of fact, I had some pictures taken. When you look at it, it's almost a mirage. You would really think that the river is flowing back up over the falls. You have a very good point there, Mr. Member.

We had another report called "Northeast Coal Study — Preliminary Environmental Report, 1977-1978." We had the resource analysis branch do another report. We had the "Terrain Analyse and Erosion Potential of Northeast Coal Block Study Area." We didn't want to erode anything up there, particularly the riverbanks. When they're digging the coal out, we don't want the rains to come and erode the side of the mountain or any of that. So we did a study to make sure that there was hard rock, so when the rains come it will be....We have really studied that aspect of it. All of that stuff is in the library.

Then there's the "Biophysical Soil Resources and Land Evaluation of the Northeast Coal Study Area, 1976-77," volume 1. You can really see that we've done a lot of homework on this great project. We had the "Biophysical Soil Resources and Land Evaluation of the Northeast Coal Study Area, 1976-77," volume 2. All of these studies are in the library.

We've had "great support from the environmentalists who know that the environment and economic development can walk hand in hand down the road together. They know that we can have economic development and still preserve the environment; that the fish, wildlife, trees will be there, and all of that magnificent beauty which is so prevalent in that area we re opening up to all the citizens by building roads. Those roads that we're building.... We'd build the roads anyway, because there are great gas fields and forest reserves there. Someday there will be great farms there. We're opening up the last frontier.

Do you know what we're doing? It's never been done before. We're charging the cost of building those highways against the cost of the northeast coal project. Did you ever hear of such foolishness in your life? Those roads should be built. That's the responsibility of government; to build roads. But just to ensure that all of the costs.... We don't want anybody coming along and saying that we didn't put this or that cost in the cost-benefit analysis that all of those economists have done. So we charged the actual cost of highway construction, which will be there for future generations and for everybody to use, to this project. That is actually unheard of in the history of any project. That highway should have been built. If they had a good MLA up there, it probably would have been built years ago. Maybe the MLA up there didn't work hard enough. He's smartening up. He's working a little harder these days.

I want to tell you about some more of these great studies we've done. Listen to this: "Vegetation Resources of the Northeast Coal Study Area, 1976-77." In other words, we went in there and looked at all the little flowers that grow. We wanted to make sure that whatever happened in there, nothing would happen to those little flowers, because we didn't want to pollute. It's all right for the deer and bear to go in and eat the roots right out so hey never grow again, but we wanted to make sure that no human being ever hurt those flowers. It's the truth. So we did a study to make sure that that vegetation.... They're beautiful little flowers. I've seen them.

MR. LEGGATT: Name one.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Rocky Mountain miniature rose and the creeping blue violet.

Oh, gracious sake, how time does fly. Mr. Chairman, I humbly move that the committee rise and report progress. I hope that we have time to ask leave to sit again. I certainly look forward to coming back.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.