[ Page 5235 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 53). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 5235

Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 34). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 5235

Mr. Lovick –– 5235

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 5235

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 71: Nechako development region –– 5236

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Guno

Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act (Bill 43). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5244

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 26). Committee stage. (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 5245

Mr. Blencoe

Commercial River Rafting Safety Act (Bill 29). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Strachan) 5246

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Edwards

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

In this bill there are amendments to about six health statutes. They cover the Health Act, Hearing Aid Act, Hospital Act, Hospital District Act, Name Act and Wills Act.

These amendments will help us manage the health care system more efficiently by streamlining some of the steps required to fill key medical positions and to appoint members to hospital boards. Amendments to the Health Act will remove the requirement for orders-in-council to appoint temporary medical health officers, allowing municipal councils to make short-term temporary appointments subject to the Health minister's approval. Changes to the Hospital Act will enable the Health minister to appoint government representatives directly rather than by order-in-council, since we have so many of them going through in any one year.

Amendments to the Health Act will allow orders, notices or other legal documents to be served by publication in newspapers where they cannot be served in person or by registered mail. A second amendment would enable hospitals to seek alternative financing through a lease-back arrangement.

Amendments to the Name Act will further support the RCMP's witness protection program by permitting residency and third-party consent requirements to be waived in exceptional circumstances, thereby allowing immediate and anonymous changes of name for participants in the program.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A little change in venue here. I understand that we are dealing with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. There's some understanding that we do the legislation first and then the last estimate.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

HON. MR. ROGERS: At the outset, when I introduced this bill, I said it was of a housekeeping nature, and I believe members will find it to be such. It's essentially miscellaneous statutes for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

In moving second reading, I would suggest that the significant amendments to the Commercial Transport Act establish new definitions of axles and gross vehicle weights, in keeping with the national Roads and Transportation Association's recommendation. Further amendments to the Commercial Transport Act state that no one shall operate an overweight or oversized vehicle except by permit. The amendment will bring this section in line with the process required under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I presume that the Legislature will be visited with many pieces of legislation which will subsequently deal with that.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act, although minor in nature, relate to operation and legal issues that enhance the effective administration of the act. Amendments allow for consistency between the Commercial Transport Act and the Motor Vehicle Act respecting the issuance of permits.

Other amendments provide for regulations to designate disabled parking zones, which we have not had in the past, and issuance and control of a British Columbia identification card for teenagers and others who do not have a driver's licence and who are asked to produce a driver's licence-like document that can be found acceptable by a host of organizations. It has fallen on my ministry to introduce this type of document. It's strictly a voluntary document, and we have had many requests to use our cameras and other facilities to do that. It will enable tighter controls in those areas, especially where false documents are currently used by minors for purchasing liquor and where individuals use false documents for cheque-cashing privileges.

Many of these amendments facilitate transportation safety and are in keeping with initiatives that will address the needs of the industry while providing protection on the highway network.

MR. LOVICK: I had an opportunity to review this legislation at some length last night. I'm pleased to report that we on this side have no difficulty with it, and we'll be supporting it. I'll have a couple of very minor questions when we get to committee stage, but I suspect we'll have a very speedy passage indeed.

I think the intention of this — what the minister referred to the other day as vehicle-keeping legislation — is entirely desirable, and we have no difficulty supporting it.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I think what needs to have been said in second reading has been said. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 34, Transportation and Highways Statutes Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[10:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

[ Page 5236 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 71: Nechako development region, $576,987.

MR. G. HANSON: I have a number of questions for the minister with respect to his responsibility as minister for native affairs in the province of British Columbia. My first question is around the whole area of native education.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: I don't believe so.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 71. Could I read the vote? "Resolved that a sum not exceeding $576,987 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Nechako development region."

MR. G. HANSON: So is the minister saying he will not respond to these questions under this particular...?

HON. MR. ROGERS: This vote was passed. However, if you'd like to phrase the questions on the assumption that the people in question live in the Nechako region, I could answer it in that vein. I'm just trying to be technically correct. I believe that vote has passed, but I'll be prepared to speak to general questions you put to me that would be in order, on that basis.

MR. G. HANSON: I don't think it really affects at all the remarks I'm going to make. Clearly, they apply to that particular region as they apply provincewide; there is no problem there. I'm talking about the education of native people and the fact that somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of students — native children who enter the educational system — withdraw from that system prior to completing grade 12.

The master tuition agreement was negotiated, and I believe it was completed. I saw the announcement fairly recently; I think it was April. There were some bones of contention that the native people had around that negotiation process. There was an appeal for more say in the curriculum and the way the school system is administered with respect to native children — curriculum and responsiveness of the school districts to native needs. The minister knows that English is a second language for the native children in the north. Some languages are used more extensively at home, and the northern interior is one area where that occurs.

I want to ask the minister why there was no provision for aboriginal representation in the evaluation process of native needs in the school district. The native people made representation for funds to be turned over where they would pursue negotiations with the school district and get some greater relevance and responsiveness to the needs of aboriginal people. I wonder if the minister could comment on those matters.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This one could be commented on both by myself and by my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). What concerns me — and I know it concerns a number of native leaders — is the number of students who fail to complete the post-secondary education programs that are available. We have done a number of rather in-depth examinations of why that is the case, to try and find out. In some cases, of course, it's with communities located a long distance from.... The educational facility is not located near where the people live. It's a homesickness problem. In some cases there's a lot of peer pressure; in some cases there's the feeling there's not a necessity for it.

Nonetheless, in the new MTA we have for the first time an agreement to measure the performance, which we have not previously had. Unlike the previous years, the native community has had an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the renewed MTA — which took some time to negotiate, I might point out. As a result, they may, if they choose, take advantage of the possibility of developing a local agreement with local school boards. In addition, an evaluation clause is included in the MTA at native request to allow for the monitoring of native children's success and curriculum effectiveness.

We currently teach native languages in 22 of the 75 school districts. I'd like to see that expand, especially as the need or the numbers warrant that type of requirement. I believe that answers the questions you posed to me.

MR. G. HANSON: More specifically, given the fact, as I outlined, that 75 to 80 percent of children drop out of the system, and you have a new master tuition agreement negotiated, and the native people, given those numbers, have asked for more direct control over that spending, which was not given.... Then they asked for aboriginal representation in the evaluation process.

Now the minister is correct. He says that the MTA includes a measure for evaluation, for appropriateness and student achievement. But there's no native involvement. They asked for representation in that evaluation process so they could evaluate district by district what their needs might be to make it more responsive, and that was turned down.

My question is: why? Was representation made by your ministry to the federal government in this negotiation process, urging native involvement?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I must say that we did certainly urge the federal government to involve the native people in this particular process. But the MTA agreement does not come under the authority or the auspices of this ministry. It's just that I'm the ombudsman, if you will, for native people.

One of the issues that we were looking at in part of the negotiations was the proposal that they be given a fixed sum per person to go and shop between school districts. The school boards were very adamant about the fact that in the lower mainland areas — for example, in the Sto:Lo area and other areas where they could go between schools — it became very awkward for the school board on a contractual basis to be able to make an assumption of how many students they would have and consequently gear up their class sizes and everything else that they had, only to find that they could move on 30 days' notice or even less. There was some negotiation to try to prevent at least school-shopping or school-hopping on anything more than a year-by-year basis. Of course, there are a number of different school districts involved.

MR. G. HANSON: Under the new master tuition agreement, there is a provision for a kind of voucher system. This

[ Page 5237 ]

proposal was unanimously rejected by aboriginal representatives in the negotiations. The voucher system would allow local agreements between bands and boards, but the money would still be paid directly to the local school boards. Boards then are under no obligation to reach an agreement, since they will be paid anyway, and aboriginal people have no way to force compliance once an agreement is in place.

What I am driving at in my questioning is that given those numbers of dropouts, surely at some point with the federal and provincial governments, in terms of getting together, there has got to be recognition that there is something seriously wrong. What seems to be seriously wrong is that the aboriginal people of B.C. don't have enough say in what occurs in the school system with respect to their children and their educational needs, goals and so on. Every time they ask for some say, whether it be in evaluation or to work directly with the boards and have some leverage with the money as opposed to.... The boards get the money in any event and they say: "If we don't like what we're hearing, we just don't pay any attention anyway." That seems to be the crux of the problem.

I've got some other questions about education. I just want to talk about the cutbacks of the Department of Indian Affairs. There are many reports of plans by the federal government to cut back on programs and benefits for aboriginal people, even where these programs are clearly the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. The capping of expenditures on post-secondary education is a good example of the federal tactics and the provincial government's role and acquiescence in this.

Given the fact that I know — and as the minister said — there's not a ministry of this government that is native affairs or aboriginal affairs.... He characterized his role as an ombudsman for native people. What's happening is that at the federal level, the squeeze is on. The restraint is on, in terms of the capping of funds that are supposed to be coming and maintaining the constitutional responsibilities of the federal government for native people in their education, at a time when 75 to 80 percent are dropping out between K to 12. We've got a serious problem here in this province.

The federal government's unilateral cap on the amount of money being spent on status Indian post-secondary education was announced in a letter to all chiefs on May 12, 1987. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Harcourt) asked this minister whether any representation had been made to the federal government opposing that capping of post-secondary education funding. Because he was somewhat evasive in his response at that time, I wonder what the minister could tell the House of his representation to the federal government on the capping of post-secondary education funding for status Indians in British Columbia.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. McKnight and I discuss things on a very regular basis. I think your questions perhaps could have been asked during the Minister of Education's budget in some aspects of the questions and in my estimates in other aspects of your questions, and perhaps more appropriately on the correct vote. However, in many cases the natives have a choice of going to a band school or a public school off the reserve. Although in Sechelt, of course, they're funded directly.

In terms of the capping of funds, I have expressed my concern about that, although the federal government has given me some examples of where there has been some abuse of the system by persons going out of the country to take fresh-air-and-music kinds of courses that are offered in the state of Florida. Golf course attendants — a PhD course at a non-recognized Florida university — has offended some of the people in federal Indian Affairs and is one of the ones they brought to my attention.

[10:30]

Nonetheless, we recognize that there is a problem. We have put an extra $300,000 into the Vancouver Indian education centre and another $150,000 into the central Island centre, and we do have the B.C. student bursary program. While not all needs of all people are met at all times, we have done a pretty good job of trying to see that the shortfall the federal government has had in terms of students getting an education in British Columbia or at recognized institutions outside of this province is met with more assistance than is offered to other students. We have to make that special recognition of the fact that in many cases the natives have come from an area where they haven't had the general background that might be available in larger metropolitan areas to students going on to university.

I discuss these matters with Mr. McKnight and federal officials on quite a frequent basis. I must say that when we get together and discuss our issues, our meetings are long — albeit cordial — and we go through a host of things from housing to transportation to education to health care needs to economic development opportunities. I don't have a specific minute of the meetings to say how much of them was spent on post-secondary education, except to tell you that it is one of the subjects we discuss when I meet with the minister; and of course I have meetings with their senior deputy minister for British Columbia, Mr. Owen Anderson. I'm not sure if that's his proper bureaucratic title, but he certainly is the senior representative for.... DIAN, I believe, is the name of the portfolio.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think they would call him the director-general.

I've put forward the case as often as I can. I find that we have had some success in dealing with Mr. McKnight's office — more success by far than we did with his predecessor. We are lucky to have him as the minister, considering what we had to deal with before.

MR. G. HANSON: Prior to coming in this morning I asked the library to gather for me a report that I had read when I was a student. It was done by Dr. Harry Hawthorn, an anthropologist professor at the University of British Columbia in 1967. It's called "Survey of Contemporary Indians of Canada: Economic, Political, Educational Needs and Policies." Just looking at the educational section here, it doesn't look like much advance has been made according to the real needs of the native people.

I just want to read a couple of things, and I commend this to any member of the House. It's a two-volume work that took some years to produce. It was supposed to be a blueprint identifying problems and suggesting directions. Chapter 4 is called "Education of the Indian Child." I'd like to read a couple of things into the record. It talks about some of the basic assumptions of his study which proved relevant:

"It was assumed that: (1) schooling of any type would represent a discontinuity of experience for the

[ Page 5238 ]

Indian child and the discontinuity would impede his early scholastic achievement."

In other words he was talking about the cultural dimension to the educational system.

"The degree of discontinuity would be affected by such factors as the level of education of...parents, his economic background, the degree of acculturation of his community. Where such factors were low, cultural dissonance and personal anomy were expected to be high. Where non-Indian attitudes towards Indians were negative and discriminatory, it was assumed that Indian levels of aspiration would be low and self-images would be primarily negative."

He asks in this section if his assumptions were reasonable. He states:

"The data we have gathered indicate that all of the above assumptions were useful in explaining the lack of achievement, the low levels of aspiration and negative self-image of Indian youth."

I'm expressing this out of this report to indicate that we have a serious problem when 75 percent to 80 percent of Indian children don't complete secondary education. He says:

"There is no question that schooling presents a clear discontinuity of experience for the Indian child. Such discontinuity contributes to the retardation of 80 percent of the Indian children in first grade" — those terms would probably be anachronistic now, but he's referring to performance — "and to the average age grade retardation of a minimum 2.5 years for all individuals."

He's saying that the cultural dimension sets Indian children back 2.5 years into grade 1 for a start. That seems to be certainly argument enough for native leadership to have a say in Indian programs for their own children. As I say, this report was a 1967 report by Dr. Harry Hawthorn.

As we see what is occurring today in the negotiation of the master tuition agreement, the statistics around Indian participation in the educational system, the way that native people feel the system addresses their concerns and their interests and their needs, we seem to be light years apart.

He says:

"Discontinuity of experience is directly attributable to the differences in educational backgrounds of Indian parents from non-Indian ones and in different expectations and socialization processes of the child. Low economic background usually revealed itself in lack of space in the home, poor health and nutrition and inadequate clothing...."

In other words, cultural poverty around the educational system.

I want to commend this report of 1967 to the minister as the ombudsman for native people to compare where Dr. Harry Hawthorn put a stake in the ground in 1967 with where we are today. I think that he'd find that in areas of economic and political and educational needs, we haven't come that far. The native people, the native leadership would be the first to say so.

Let me ask another question about education. The capping of post-secondary education for native people took effect in the 1987-88 budget year. It freezes expenditures by region at last year's budgeted level. No transfers may be made from other categories. Previously, all status Indians accepted in a post-secondary program automatically received funding. Now, once funding runs out each year, either through escalating costs per student or increased numbers of applicants, students will be denied assistance. Has the minister made representation to Mr. McKnight of the Department of Indian Affairs about this policy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the member for Burnaby North has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: Visiting us in the Legislature today are some 20 students from one of my favourite schools — I'm sure it would be yours if you had an opportunity to visit that school — Stoney Creek Community School in North Burnaby. They're here studying government as part of their grade 7 social studies curriculum, and I know they would be very interested in the questions by the first member for Victoria on the importance of native Indian education. I know both sides of the House will join me in giving these students a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The simple answer to the question from the first member for Victoria is yes. We're really discussing federal grants and items which perhaps should be discussed federally.

A number of things have happened since the report you quoted from. We have appointed native people to college boards, we have a native representative at the Open Learning Institute, and we've begun working with tribal councils to establish a heritage, language and cultural institute. There are over 2,000 natives currently receiving some type of post-secondary education this year. That's a massive improvement since the time of that report. There are literally dozens of native teachers, as a result of special programs to train them.

One of the difficulties that many people have who are not cognizant of the native community is their failure to understand the vast difference between native groups. To say a native is a native doesn't establish anything except that perhaps if they're a status native, they qualify for certain things accorded them federally. The differences between them are enormous. The differences in culture, pride, dignity, self-esteem and all the other things that are important in terms of one's social direction are enormous between bands and tribal councils. In some cases they have established or re-established the pride and dignity they once enjoyed; in some cases I don't believe they've ever lost it. They have enormous self-worth and probably a great deal of satisfaction in the work they do and the style in which they look after themselves and their families. In other cases, drugs, alcohol and urban encroachment — a host of things — have seen that dignity and status diminish to a point that they have given up and do not try to make the effort that one would hope they would make.

But to your simple question on federal grants, the answer is yes, in terms of the pressures we've brought on them. There were some abuses of the federal system by people attending institutions — largely out of this country, by the way; I don't think the abuses took place in British Columbia or Canada — which the federal government is willing and able to point out to me. Nonetheless, I think that if there are abuses, they should address them but not necessarily restrict the funding, because there are lots of institutes in this province and in other provinces which are more than able to facilitate the needs.

[ Page 5239 ]

In terms of the youngsters coming up and the handicap they have, where they're brought up in a school that is predominantly native and they have native teachers, we won't know the results of those kinds of experiments, if you like, or changes in the way education is done for another five to seven years. But the results of tests that are showing up in places like Alkali Lake and others where they have made major social changes in the community, where the school board is run locally and the teachers are local.... Indications are that they're at or above the provincial average, so I think there's great hope in terms of the future and the progress that's being made.

It's very difficult to somehow get over the peer group pressure that is felt — also by non-native groups. You can categorize a number of other people in socioeconomic categories where peer group pressure makes it very difficult for students who are bright and who have the ability to fight that social pressure on them to get out and go to work or to get out and have a good time, instead of staying in, grinding through the books and achieving the goals their natural ability lets them achieve. It's something we work on on a continuous basis. I guess I'm redundant when I say that.

MR. G. HANSON: It was reported by the University of British Columbia that for 1987-88 as many as one-third of the native students were denied assistance to attend university. According to the native students' association, the long-term social cost of denying education to native people will far outweigh the cost of the aid. I think every member of this House would concur with that statement.

[10:45]

The minister recounted accomplishments. Of course there have been accomplishments, but I'd like to read again a paragraph from Dr. Hawthorn's report. In 1967, under the chapter "Education is a New Need, " he talked about the participation.... Again, I want the members to understand that I'm just taking a paragraph from an entire study, and I want to commend the whole study to the members. But let me just read this one paragraph about the way non-Indian education was not meeting the needs of the native people in 1967. You judge yourselves, according to the points we've been raising here, about whether we're making progress.

"Indian objection to schooling is then at the general planning level and at the practical level. In other words, the Indian notion of education is not in keeping with the government ideology and avant-garde ideas. As a result, the services provided do not always meet the needs felt and often are not in keeping with needs expressed. The Indians feel that schools do not offer the various elements — structural and in the content of programs — which would allow them to develop according to their own ideas. This discrepancy between the Indians' concept of education and that of the government enables us to understand some of the fears and resistance in Indian communities.

"The gap between the needs felt by the Indian population and the intentions of the government is not the only factor which explains the limited nature...in education over the past quarter century.

I think this is the key point, Mr. Minister:

"It must also be said that Indians themselves have had very little opportunity to express their views on this subject which has made government action very difficult indeed. Besides, present structures of the school system have made it hard for Indians to participate in their organization and planning."

That is the nub of it, Mr. Minister: native people in the province of British Columbia, even last month or so in the negotiation of the master tuition agreement, were denied a significant role in addressing their real needs in the school systems of this province — even when we've got numbers as disgraceful as they are. Whatever accomplishments have been made, there are certain key statistics that we can look at that indicate that there is an awful long way to go. It seems the only answer is to give an authentic role to the native people of the province to administer their own education.

My colleague from the Nass Valley, representing the electoral district of Atlin, knows firsthand what occurs when bands have an opportunity to take a more significant role in the school district. Of course, the Nishga School District is one where a number of positive changes have occurred over time, and there's more to be done. I'm sure that my colleague will express his views on that in a moment or two.

I and members on this side of the House feel frustration when we see the native people putting forward proposals to have a voice — an authentic voice — in the administration of education and being denied it. Then when we have native students who overcome significant barriers to get to a post-secondary level of university, and because they're denied financial assistance because of capping at the Department of Indian Affairs budget and a third of the native students wanting to attend the University of British Columbia are denied assistance and therefore can't go, we've got serious problems.

It looks like the Department of Indian Affairs is trying to shift the financial responsibility onto the province and avoid their constitutional responsibility to provide adequate funding for any native child that wants to proceed through the educational system and certainly into post-secondary education. So my question to the minister is: what representation has been made about the third of native students who can't get financial assistance to go to university in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll look into that statistic, because I haven't been provided that one before. A lot of people misuse the term "native," or to put it this way, they use it to their own advantage. The federal government's responsibility is for status natives. There are almost as many non-status natives, and of course, there are also Metis. I presume that around Dawson Creek they'd be indigenous to British Columbia, but certainly the ones who live in the lower mainland can hardly claim to be indigenous to the area. Some of them have applied for post-secondary education. I'll find out about that statistic in terms of funding.

You talked a bit about the education system in that report. At the time that report was written, one thing that was felt was that there had to be a greater feeling of openness and community involvement. They tried the great open-classroom experiment. It's interesting that the Nimpkish people.... The chief of the Alert Bay band saw what happened as a result of that report and the whole thinking about education at the time the report came in. The school board there established one of those open schools, and the chief was so disappointed with the lack of discipline and lack of results that he pulled his students out and put them into a band school where they received an education a little more representative of what we would see in a normal educational system. The

[ Page 5240 ]

measure of its success is that the majority of the non-native students in Alert Bay have chosen to go to the school run by the band, because they get a better education.

There are lots of examples around of bold experiments that have been tried and have failed. There are certainly some good examples of native-run schools that have real pressure on them for results from the community itself. The community is very anxious to produce results, and I'm sure the member from the Nass is going to give us a little talk about things in that school district. But they have phenomenal success compared to the things they used to have when education was run by non-native people or, even prior to that, by various religious organizations. In some cases, of course, they still do.

MR. G. HANSON: The figures I have for B.C. are that the full-time-equivalent enrolment for native aboriginal people in post-secondary education was just under 2,000 and the expenditure was just under $14 million. I'm going to leave this matter for the moment and move on to a couple of other questions, but I want to know how the federal government, when it has a constitutional responsibility to provide the funding for education, can cap that responsibility and say: "We're simply not going to provide the dollars for that." I don't understand that.

Does the minister share my view that it's the federal government's responsibility to live up to its constitutional obligations and provide money as the need arises? If a person qualifies and wants to attend post-secondary education, they may require assistance to do so.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I just don't think it's appropriate for us to be discussing the vote for the federal minister of Indian Affairs in this Legislature, when clearly that's a responsibility that they have. The numbers you have given apply just to status Indians; we are also concerned with the non-status Indians and the Metis and what they do. My perception of my responsibility is that it's broader than just those. As soon as the natives leave the reserve and become non-status natives, the federal government's responsibility drops off a great deal. I look at our mandate as being much broader than that. The largest Indian community in this province is clearly the city of Vancouver, in terms of population; so that's where that is.

I must say that there are several things that absolutely confound me about the federal government. I don't understand why they want these underwater boats. That completely confounds me. I suppose if they cancelled one of them, we could fund all the native programs. If they cancelled the other eight, we could do something completely constructive. I certainly don't think they'll be of any use, but I'm not a member of the federal House. I suppose if I was, I'd be worrying about going back to the riding to see if I could get re-elected. I'm not sure I'd want to go through that.

I just keep plugging away at it, and we keep shooting at it where we can. We try to deal not just with the status people, because there are a whole host of people, and the business of who gets status and who doesn't get status and the politics involved in that.... We've got to consider the social side of these people when they are non-status Indians and have many of the same social problems that status Indians do, and they drop between the cracks. We spend some time working on those people as well and giving them some assistance.

Actually, I'm very pleased with the number of natives that we now have sitting on boards and commissions in serious positions in government, and with the contribution they are making and the subsequent exposure they're getting to other members of the business community — and the non-business community for that matter. I think we've made some pretty good progress. We now have natives on the board of B.C. Ferry Corporation, B.C. Rail, the Open Learning Institute and some hospitals — I want to get some more. One of the greatest benefits of this whole thing is that the non-natives on the board have begun to realize that there's a lot of talent there that they've never looked at before, and a little dialogue doesn't do any harm.

That's just getting off the subject a little bit, but I think we've made some good progress. I'm looking for a lot more as well. I'm not saying that this is the end of the target at all.

The bureaucracy of the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is absolutely staggering, and if there is one thing that most native groups will agree on, it is that despite their very best intentions, it's a very awkward process with the people they have to deal with in DINA. I can see it, because in what we've gone through in Ingenika and in other areas, they have an attitude that's sort of: "You can't get there from here, but we'll study it anyway." The results are awfully slow in coming. They just love to have committee meetings and go to Ottawa to discuss things which really shouldn't be discussed; they should just go on and make the decision. That's how they choose to run their operation; we run ours with a very small and, I think, very effective staff. I think we've got good results for the dollars that have been expended.

MR. GUNO: I think my colleague has very well covered the very important issue of education for native people, and the minister is correct in making the distinction between status and non-status. I think that's an important distinction, because there is that larger problem of non-status Indians who live off-reserve and are properly within the jurisdiction of the province.

My friend is correct in continuing to emphasize the need for both governments to recognize that native people have to have a greater say in the development of educational priorities and programs. This is amply demonstrated in the Nass Valley. In spite of the fact that they've been at it for, I think, 18 years, they still feel they're in a developmental stage and that it is crucial that it is recognized that they haven't quite worked out a lot of the problems. We've got to remember that we're dealing with a situation where at one point the Department of Indian Affairs governed the lives of native people from cradle to grave, every aspect of life. Today the native people are aspiring to greater self-determination. Education is one of the keys to that. Both levels of government have to somehow take a quantum leap over this psychological mindset that native people can't control education, the education that affects their children.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I just want to reiterate that point — the case in point in the Nechako region, for instance. We have the Good Hope Lake people. It's a small village. Their kids have to travel something like an hour and a half each day — kids from kindergarten age on up. They are concerned about the fact that smaller kids have to spend so much time travelling. In the Cassiar area we have some pretty severe winter conditions. They want to set up their own school, but they are having

[ Page 5241 ]

problems dealing with the school board on that. The school board, I would think, are sympathetic, but the problem is funding. The other problem is the high dropout rates of the kids attending the high school because of cultural barriers, because of the fact that there is no special counsellor who is sensitive to the particular problems that native students have in a school. I remember when I first went from the reserve to a school in Prince Rupert. It was a very difficult transition to try to adjust to that situation. Those problems are still going on.

[11:00]

I wanted to clarify the role of the minister. He describes his role as that of an ombudsman for the native people. We're all aware that we have an ombudsman already who is available to all citizens of British Columbia, and I would suspect that the native people are also citizens of British Columbia. If the minister ascribes to himself the role of ombudsman, I want some clarification about this. Is that parallel to the ombudsman, or is it independent?

Secondly, as I understand it, the role of the minister in terms of taking on the responsibility of native affairs under his department would be to develop policies for the government in meeting their responsibilities that deal with native people. If that is the case, I would see some very clear conflict between policy-making and the ombudsman role.

I wonder if the minister would clarify exactly what he means when he says: "I am an ombudsman for the native people."

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps it's a bad turn of phrase to use the word "ombudsman." I guess what I like to think is that in the day-to-day role of government, I try always to be cognizant of the native position on issues that come before cabinet for decisions. When my colleagues are discussing whatever it is in their particular portfolios that has a relation to the native community, I take special attention to try and keep a monitor on that, to always raise native consciousness if I can.

I can't always do that because I'm not always completely informed, but Eric Denhoff, assistant deputy minister, is here and is well respected by my colleagues in cabinet and is able to give me that information along with his staff. I don't carry the cause, as the ombudsman does, for someone who feels he has been dealt an injustice. I don't mean it in that way. I mean it much more, if you like, in a legal sense. You would say in court you're "keeping a watching brief" on those issues where you don't have an active role in that particular issue. The natives aren't involved in everything that we do — that is, not specifically; as citizens, of course, they are.

In many instances I try to intervene or speak up on behalf of the local band or tribal council, or if we're not dealing with a regional issue, on how it may affect native people on any policy. We deal also, of course, with the non-status and the Metis, and that's quite a different thing. The Kaska Dene people at Good Hope Lake are non-status. They have been battling with the federal government to receive status. I believe they are Dene; you could probably correct me on that if I'm wrong. I don't think they are Tlingit or Tahltan. We had that situation in a number of instances around the province where people who do not enjoy status and feel they are entitled to it are doing that, and, of course, there is great resistance there.

I view my role and the role of the secretariat as one that tries to raise the consciousness and bring the concerns of the native people, to represent them where possible, act as a conduit in some cases where natives have had difficulty in dealing with a line ministry. Under regular terms we try and assist that in that area. In many cases we arrange and schedule meetings where a whole host of ministries or different disciplines are involved, especially in economic development. We were talking earlier about education, but in many cases in these small communities there aren't enough economic development opportunities, and most of the native population would like to stay in their tribal area or work relatively close to home. We work with them on economic development issues as well. In many cases we are just an observer in an economic development initiative being put forward, and in many cases we're an activist.

It depends on how the thing comes forward. There's not a set formula for it. If they approach through my ministry, we move and try to assist people on an economic development front. On the other hand, I may be asked by somebody who has a group of people coming down, some of them natives, to attend to see what I could do to assist. When I say "ombudsman," it's not the correct generic word to use, but for lack of a better one, I'm the person given the mandate. The mandate is reasonably loose and subject to interpretation. I must admit it's probably the most enjoyable part of my portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Langley requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: On behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House 30 grade 5 and 6 students accompanied by their teachers and volunteers who are over studying democracy in action. Will the House please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

MR. G. HANSON: I'd like to talk a bit about the First Citizens' Fund. It seems that there has been a departure in terms of the mandate of the First Citizens' Fund. It was established to....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, I recognize the member's concern because I used to have this portfolio, and I know that he's genuine in what he's trying to get at. However, we have had legislation that deals with the change in direction of the First Citizens' Fund. It was approved by this House. It was debated; it was approved. Clearly we're dealing in past legislation.

Secondly, the minister's main vote is where we discuss his responsibilities as the minister responsible for native affairs, and that has passed as well. We are clearly now dealing with the vote as the minister of state for an economic development region. I think our debate should pertain to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the point of order and asks the first member for Victoria to continue.

MR. G. HANSON: The House Leader didn't let me finish. It looks like the mandate has been shifted to use the interest from the First Citizens' Fund as a loan program for economic activities, which is a good idea but shouldn't be used as a substitute for the cultural and heritage objectives of the First Citizens' Fund when it was originally established. I

[ Page 5242 ]

asked questions in question period the other day, and I think this is a better forum for it. I'd like to ask the minister what precisely is the breakdown now. Our information is that student bursaries and friendship centres are the only programs funded outside of the loan program. We're talking about the grants, which were made for cultural and educational purposes, and it seems that there has been a shift over into a loan program. What precisely is the breakdown? When did this occur?

HON. MR. ROGERS: This is certainly out of order in this particular vote, and it was canvassed in question period. I'll respond again, as I did the other day in question period, but it's an abuse of the House to continue on this way.

There is $650,000 of the $1.9 million currently going towards friendship centres and bursaries; $1.3 million of it is going to loans. One-half of those loans are forgivable, so in essence, two-thirds of the funds are still going in grants. The lottery funds have already given $800,000 worth of expenditures that were never available before. That was a change in policy announced some time ago, and it has been well circulated among the native community in both status and non-status groups, which previously were constantly being referred to the First Citizens' Fund. So we have expanded the pool of capital that's available.

At the request of the natives, we have made some funds available for loans so that they can get into business activities which they had great difficulty doing before, in terms of accessing funds normally available, because the lending institutions always use the same excuse. They use a number of excuses when it comes to native organizations, and the natives themselves felt that they would rather have an opportunity to get a loan. They get some loans from NEDP, and they sometimes get a topping-up loan from us. If these loans are successful, then the money is recycled and more money is made available, rather than the money disappearing. If the loan portfolio is successful and continues to grow, we will see more money being available in the future for such use. Beyond that, if I were still the Chairman, I would have ruled myself out of order by now. This is clearly abuse of the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I agree with your interpretation. I would like to remind members that we are on vote 71, and questions must be confined to vote 71 to be acceptable. I would ask all the members to cooperate with the Chair.

MR. G. HANSON: We happen to think that the ministers of state system is an abuse of the parliamentary system in general.

I want to ask the minister a couple of important questions. I feel some of the frustration that the native people feel. There are a number of hoops to jump through. Certainly there are rules in this House, but that minister is responsible for native people.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You should have spoken up during the right vote.

MR. G. HANSON: Fine. There are 21 Indian friendship centres in B.C. I want to ask the minister about the long-range security of funding for friendship centres. There is a great deal of concern that the funding is for one year, and friendship centres receive no funding from the DIA. Minimal core funding is from the secretary of state. What is this minister's commitment to funding of the friendship centres?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I can't commit future governments. At the current time, we fund 22 friendship centres in the province, and we have given $30,000 to the central planning group that looks after the future of not only friendship centres but the whole planning of the organization. Yes, they are not funded by DIA; they are funded by the secretary of state. Once again, I have difficulty understanding why we are discussing the estimates of the hon. — I can't think of the name of the federal minister of state who deals with these issues, but it's certainly not my vote — Bouchard.

MR. G. HANSON: I would like the minister, as the "ombudsman" for native people, to outline what his position is with respect to negotiating land claims in the province.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The matter has been extensively canvassed. It is inappropriate to discuss it under this vote. The matter has not changed, and the position of the government is clear on this issue.

MR. G. HANSON: On another question. The federal government proposed to the native leadership of Canada that they go off and lobby the provincial governments to see if there could be a constitutional conference with respect to native matters. The native people turned it down because they felt it wasn't their.... Why should they go and lobby provincial governments so that there be a constitutional convention on those matters? What is the position of this minister with respect to a constitutional conference on native self-government and other native matters?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm just really reminded that the position of this government is exactly the same as the position of your party when you were government between 1972 and 1975 as annunciated by the then member for Vancouver-Burrard when he stood on the steps of the Legislature and said the same thing. So I'm at a loss to know why you continue to abuse the rules of the House.

What conferences may take place in the future is a matter for future consideration. I have discussed the matter at length with the federal minister, but those matters remain confidential.

[11:15]

MR. G. HANSON: Is the minister telling the House that he has no position with respect to these conferences and that he's not going to contact the federal government and suggest that that be put on the agenda?

The minister talked about language and the fact that some native languages are taught in particular areas of the province. There was a throne speech some time ago that seemed to indicate that the government was going to take....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, I hope for the last time, my Hansard records indicate to me that the minister's vote for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, where this would have been most appropriately canvassed, was discussed on May 3, May 26, May 27, May 30, June 14 and June 15, for a total of 11 hours and 7 minutes. Why the first member for Victoria was not here is beyond me, but nevertheless he had six days and 11 hours of debate to

[ Page 5243 ]

canvass native affairs and neglected to do that. I don't see, Mr. Chairman, why the House should suffer because that member can't attend the House when he's supposed to. I really think, with the greatest respect, that he should contain his debate to the Minister of State for Nechako or leave the assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the first member for Victoria, I'd like to mention that the Chair has extended considerable leniency. The point of order that has been raised by the government House Leader is definitely in order, and I must remind you that we are debating vote 71. If you continue with the line of questioning outside the scope of vote 71, I'll have to rule you out of order.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that the matters of Highways and Transportation would be dealt with first and that the native component of this minister's responsibilities would be dealt with this morning. If that minister wants to hide behind the rules and nitpick on this, then so be it.

The Whip is agreed, so I will ask the House Leader to withdraw his comments.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The House has no knowledge of the agreements of the Whips. I'm only quoting from the estimates. I was not asked about this issue.

When the member rose to speak to me this morning on a number of native issues — probably 45 minutes ago — I entered into a debate and discussed it. If we have all of sudden decided that the rules of the House are no longer appropriate and that any matter can be discussed under a vote, that's a change for me. I'm not suggesting for one minute that I'm not prepared to discuss matters that I'm responsible for in my estimates, but we have had six days or seven different occasions for these matters to come up for discussion. I was told by your member that the only reason we're holding it is for your seatmate from Victoria to discuss the Nechako development region. If you wish to discuss these matters — if the Chair allows you these tolerances — perhaps you can proceed. If I were in your position, I'd have no difficulty finding a way to make the debate in order, as did your seatmate from Atlin, whose questions were in order.

MR. G. HANSON: It's not my fault that the government House Leader and the government Whip don't seem to talk, but that was certainly the understanding, and now the minister is backing up.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: That wasn't what you were indicating before.

So my questions are in order, and they're of interest to the native people of the province. The most significant issue is a constitutional conference on native affairs. This minister would be the minister that would attend, and this is the opportunity for us to ask him what his position is. Is he sympathetic with having a constitutional conference on native affairs and saving the federal government the public money they want to put into some lobbying campaign? Surely this provincial minister could just state clearly: "Yes, I'm going to write Mr. McKnight in Ottawa and say that there should be a constitutional conference on native matters, because it is of urgency." It's as simple as that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Now that the people of New Brunswick have rid the table of Mr. Hatfield, it might be a more constructive process, because the last time we had his two-faced remarks where he said one thing in public and another.... I guess I have to withdraw that.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not elected anymore.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Maybe I don't if he's not elected anymore. He was the one person who did more to thwart that conference than anybody else. I am prepared to meet and go to Ottawa or anywhere else in this country to discuss these matters with the federal government. I have already asked them to get the matter back on the agenda. It is at the call of the Prime Minister. I presume the Premier has the option of discussing this matter with the Prime Minister on behalf of the native people of British Columbia — status, non-status and Metis — all of whom have spoken to me about it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I have spoken at length to Mr. McKnight about this issue and a host of other issues, but I fail to see any willingness so far on behalf of the Prime Minister to get the items back on the table. But there should be no doubt about who did the most damage the last time this meeting was held, and it was Premier Hatfield from New Brunswick who did the most damage last time. Fortunately, the people of New Brunswick have taken the proper steps in that case.

MR. GUNO: I really can't let that assessment of who is responsible for sabotaging the last first ministers' conference on self-government go by without some comment, because I disagree completely that it was solely the responsibility of the Premier from New Brunswick. I think it was the inability of both the federal and many of the provincial governments to recognize a very historic obligation to recognize the distinctness of the aboriginal people in this country.

Be that as it may, there is a process set in place by the Minister of Indian Affairs, Mr. McKnight, who has advised the various national aboriginal groups to lobby each province to see if there is any kind of political will to undertake a future first ministers' conference on self-government. In that light, I'm just wondering if the minister has had any dialogue with any of the aboriginal groups to see if such lobbying can be intensified.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Only with Inuit people. In my capacity as Minister of Energy and also in my capacity as Minister of Environment, I met a number of people from the Northwest Territories who I have established great friendships with, who are MLAs in Yellowknife, and I have discussed the matter with them in terms of their ability to go ahead and do a deal. You see, while the four groups were represented — the status, non-status, Metis and the Inuit — one of the reasons the whole debate broke down is that the government of Canada said: "We require the agreement of this number of provinces."

Of course, they don't require that agreement with the Northwest Territories, neither the District of Mackenzie nor the District of Keewatin. Of course, had they been prepared to do it, that may have been the ice that broke the logjam because there were things said in public at that national convention which were totally denied upstairs in private. The

[ Page 5244 ]

leaders that were there, Joe Mathias and others, can confirm that. I have worked on this issue of trying to see if the item can be put back on the agenda, but there is very little willingness now that I see, federally at least, to reconvene the conference.

With a change of government in the province of Quebec and a change of government in New Brunswick and a change of government in the province of Ontario, we perhaps might have a much more constructive conference the next time it's held. Yes, there's also that change of government in Manitoba. Perhaps it's a significant change in Manitoba. I have not yet met the minister in Manitoba who would be my counterpart to discuss these issues to see how they feel on the issue.

I think perhaps when Meech Lake is no longer a discussion point between the federal government and the provinces, once that's been disposed of one way or the other, then we won't be clouding the issue with that. But the last time we met, the issue was so clouded with non-related issues that it was staggering. Quite frankly, I don't think that the will was there to address the issue, not on a national basis. The agenda expanded far beyond the time that was made available and, quite frankly, the natives found it frustrating and I found it terribly frustrating to go through that whole process where false expectations and hopes were raised by certain people.

The Premier of New Brunswick, who spoke so eloquently on national television and then went upstairs and said, "I support this, but my cabinet could never possibly support it and I know my caucus wouldn't support it," never bothered to tell that to the people of Canada, and he was the great ally. Of course, he was being deceitful in his conduct of it, in my opinion. He should have been forthright and told not only the native people but the rest of the people of Canada what his position really was. To say that he personally supported it but to bring it up immediately afterwards and to say, "But my cabinet and caucus would never support it, and I'd never bring it to my Legislature," seemed to me to be the height of hypocrisy, which is not unusual in that case.

But I'm prepared to go at any time and work with whatever group wants to get together to try and solve it. I think perhaps now, with the change of players, at least on the non-native side of things, we might see some progress.

MR. G. HANSON: One other very important question, Mr. Speaker. The courts have been sending signals to governments that all parties might find a process of negotiation for resolving claims that is better than litigation. This was the Sparrow case: "In doing so, it recognized what is obviously the fact: many aboriginal rights are inadequately identified and defined. It made provision for resolving those...by a course of compromise and negotiation rather than a win-or-lose process of litigation." Does the minister not think that the courts signalled that an all-or-nothing court decision is not as desirable for the province as a whole as a process of negotiation and compromise?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We have been consistent. Your government maintained exactly the same position as ours when you were in power. I believe you are raising false.... Maybe not. Maybe it is the policy of your government, and your policy on these issues has changed since you were government. You may be raising false expectations.

I believe the program we are embarked on at present is the decision of government, and therefore it's the one we will stay with.

MR. GUNO: I don't think the minister has really adequately answered the important question my colleague presented. Things have changed since 1972 — certainly our party's perception about the dire need to start really meeting this problem head-on. I think it's even been identified by your own Premier as one of the most difficult problems facing British Columbians today. I don't think we can continue to hide our heads in the sand and hope that it's going to go away. I don't think we're going to continue to tolerate the uncertainty that problem presents in this province in terms of development. There are flashpoints continuing.

For this government to continue to say, "We have to maintain the present course," is straight on to the minefields. That is rather unrealistic, and I just think that to point out that you're following the same kind of policies our party adopted in 1972 is really a smokescreen.

MR. G. HANSON: In summary, a number of important issues have been raised this morning. It's unfortunate that the lines of communication weren't functioning on the government side. But matters of education, economic development, negotiations, land claims, support for friendship centres, the proper mandate of the First Citizens' Fund are all issues of importance to native people in this province, and are all issues that have been around for some time, as I indicated in the study that was done by Dr. Hawthorn in the early sixties.

[11:30]

Some progress has been made, but in the scale of what is required, not much. Not until the fundamental things, in terms of native peoples' right to have some say in their own educational process in the same way that non-natives are able to participate and have a say, ways in which they can take their proper place in the constitution of Canada, and matters of that magnitude.... Those are important issues. I think it's incumbent upon all members of this House to do what they can to bring those to resolution. As my colleague from Atlin said, these are issues that don't just go away, and you can't put your head in the sand.

I could list, and the minister knows, those areas of the province, like the Stein, the Nishga claims. . . . The list is as long as your arm. At some point a provincial government has got to have the courage to decide that it's going to sit at the table with the federal government and the native people of the province and resolve these matters, in a mature and responsible way, and not to argue and hide behind act of dominions and other antiquated notions that allow governments to push these onto the back burner, to simmer and to cause problems.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's been an important one hour this morning. I do respect the rules of the House. Unfortunately, there was a miscommunication on that side.

Vote 71 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 43.

SECHELT INDIAN GOVERNMENT

DISTRICT HOME OWNER GRANT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 43; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 5245 ]

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved,

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 43, Sechelt Indian Government District Home Owner Grant Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

The House in committee on Bill 26; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think we are going to have too many problems with this legislation, but I wonder if, on section 1, the minister can give us the background to the requirement for this validation of the Burnaby official community plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, the member for Mackenzie has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LONG: Today in the House we have with us a class of grade 6 and 7 students from Texada Island school in Vananda, with their teacher Mr. Scholtz and two assistants. Of course, Texada Island is a major part of our riding and a big contributor to the Powell River area as well. I'd like the House to make that class and their teachers very welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The district of Burnaby adopted this plan prior to receiving approval under section 187 — that refers to floodproofing and the Ministry of Environment. In essence, it makes it invalid because of their early adoption. Burnaby has requested this validating legislation. The ministry has no objection. There are no floodproofing problems. We have been asked to validate what Burnaby is presently operating under; otherwise they'll have to redo the entire process, which seems a waste.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. critic, if the minister would like, we can deal with these under the subheadings. If it's quite all right with both of you to deal with them as one section, then please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE: Not the entire bill. I'm dealing with section 1 now, which is Burnaby, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's only one section. That's what I'm getting at, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay, I'm with you. Section 266 is the one I'm referring to. Now I've lost my train of thought.

What the minister is saying basically is that Burnaby, unbeknown to it, went ahead and made some commitments, and all we're doing here is really saving them a long process and validating through the Legislature. That's somewhat abnormal. We don't do that with other community plans, as is my understanding. This is an abnormal situation for Burnaby. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It is abnormal. It is a procedural mistake, and they rather jumped the gun on finalizing the process. But on reflection, when we check it out, there is no cause for concern. Rather than insist that they go through the entire process again, we have agreed that we would bring forward this legislation to assist them.

MR. BLENCOE: What is the process of Municipal Affairs being in the position to advise municipalities of not jumping the gun on such situations? In Burnaby's case, I'm sure they've got good staff in a position to catch these things, but I brought up during the estimates that I continue to be concerned about the lack of staffing in Municipal Affairs to advise or counsel local government on this kind of situation.

For instance, I brought an issue to the minister's attention during the estimates of the fire bylaws of local councils. Many now are beginning to wonder if they have valid bylaws, and we don't have the staff at Municipal Affairs. The staff we do have are good, but there aren't enough of them to be able to advise or counsel local government to not get into this kind of situation. Does the minister have an answer to those questions?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We just assume that the municipalities follow normal procedures with regard to adoption of bylaws. The procedure is spelled out. It's well laid out. Short of our staff going in and holding the hand of every municipal manager, when the instructions are clear, it is assumed that they are going to be followed. Human nature being what it is, every once in a while somebody slips up, or something falls between the cracks. There's been no harm done, and we have been asked to assist them, and we have suggested that it would be appropriate to do so.

MR. BLENCOE: One final question on section 266. Before the municipality went ahead and validated incorrectly, was there any discussion or consultation with the ministry staff?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, there had been no discussion prior to their mistakenly enacting fourth reading.

MR. BLENCOE: We'll leave section 266 and move ahead to section 270, Fort Nelson-Liard and Peace River Regional Districts validation.

Some months ago, the minister was travelling the province saying that this was the trial county system that the Premier is so enamoured with, a system that we believe has all sorts of problems and that has been tried in other jurisdictions. I wonder if the minister still believes that this is the trial or the experiment in a county system for British Columbia and if she can report to us on how that experiment is going.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We are really acceding to the request and the wishes of the people in the area; this is the

[ Page 5246 ]

structure that they were looking for. We have given them the legislation that allows this type of structure, and we are continually working with them to ensure that the end result is something that the elected and non-elected residents of this particular area are satisfied with. We are proceeding in a way that would address what the people of the area want to see addressed.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary question. Does the minister still say today that this is the experiment in county government?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It could be looked at in that way, if you so wish.

MR. BLENCOE: It's what you were saying.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's right — because of the variation from the normal regional district procedure. It doesn't go as far as I, in my mind, envision a county system going, but it could be looked at in that way.

MR. BLENCOE: Can the minister tell me what studies are underway, if any, by her ministry or other ministries to introduce a county system into British Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: None, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: At the moment then, the only so-called experiment in county — I'm using the words of the minister of some months ago — is the Fort Nelson-Liard and Peace River Regional Districts.

[11:45]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's correct.

MR. BLENCOE: Yet it's quite clear at this time there is no intention by the government to move beyond the experiment of county in Fort Nelson-Liard and introduce a provincewide county system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a question of future policy.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think I've responded by saying there are no studies presently being done within my ministry. I would suggest that if there was to be a change, as outlined by the member, that would be future policy, and I can't speak to that at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: The reason I bring up the question of county — using the minister's words — and that this was the experiment in county is that there is great uncertainty in local government across the province, and not only with the way this government is dealing with local government. I'm referring to the minister of state system and the bureaucracy that is growing every day and the frustration level that is growing with Municipal Affairs.

I wanted to address that issue again so that hopefully very soon we're going to get back to some normal ways of governing this province and that any discussion, as the minister was saying some months ago, in experimenting with county government — as we have before us today, and we're validating it today.... It continues to muddy the waters and frustrate local government. I wanted to put that on the record.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 26, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1988, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 29.

COMMERCIAL RIVER RAFTING SAFETY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a question that relates, I would think, to this whole bill. The best way to start, I guess, is on section 1. It has to do with whether or not the province has the jurisdiction to pass this legislation. There's been some confusion in the past as to whether it is under federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction. Has there been any discussion of that, and can the minister give us that information?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good question. As the member probably knows, and as other members who have been concerned about this issue were aware, when the river rafting committee reported to the ministry, they did raise the question of where jurisdiction was: was it ours, or was it the federal government's?

I took the position, more or less just on a crapshoot basis, in December of last year that we would say that we did have jurisdiction and we would therefore go ahead and draft the act and release the regulations. We later had our position affirmed by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith). Inasmuch as this deals with the enforcement of safety regulations in the province, the Attorney-General's ministry has advised us that we are on firm footing with this bill and its regulations and that we do have the authority to carry this out. You always seek the best opinion, and the opinion we have from our own Attorney-General ministry is that we do have the authority. It's a good question.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Has Ottawa seen this legislation, and have they approved it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, they have, Madam Member, and they are supportive. Of course, as you recall, after the tragic events of last August they very quickly gave us the right to operate under the Canada Shipping Act and enforce regulations on all rivers. So they are in favour of what this legislation does, and although there is nothing official, we do have their support for it.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[ Page 5247 ]

On section 4.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This section leaves out the procedure for application for registration and licensing of guides, outfitters and trip leaders. Can the minister tell us whether or not there's a phase-in of the criteria and over how long that phase-in will take place, if indeed there is one?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're phasing it in now, Mr. Chairman, and there will be some flexibility offered for this season only. Training has, of course, gone on this spring, as you can well imagine. We are phasing it in as appropriately but as quickly as possible.

MS. SMALLWOOD: You said for this season only. How long is the phase-in period, and for this season how many companies would actually have qualified guides or trip leaders?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Out of the 27 commercial rafters known to us, there are 20 who have applied.

The power of the registrar to make standards and set and amend provisions recognizes the changing, dynamic nature of the industry and the advances in technology. We will always maintain a flexible attitude where necessary, and bring people into and up to standards as quickly as possible,

By the way, for the benefit of the House, I will point out that with me is Ralf Aldrich, the director of our conservation officer service, who, for the purpose of this bill and for the purpose of organizing the ministry, is the registrar and will be the registrar for some time, until we change it. At this point, we thought that the conservation officer service director would be the most appropriate person within the ministry to be the registrar of commercial river rafting. He is the fellow with me this morning.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am still uncertain, Mr. Minister, how many actual companies or organizations at this time have qualified outfitters or trip leaders under this legislation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are 20 companies, and I am advised that we have about 180 people who have been checked out as either trip leaders or guides.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Do the 180 represent a broad section of the industry or only a few specific companies?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They represent all the companies.

I'm advised by my director here that in fact there's a further test tomorrow that's going to qualify more employees. I don't know the number, but there's continual testing going on at all times.

MS. EDWARDS: The registrar may establish more than one class of guide or trip leader with different criteria to be met. Can you give us a bit of background on how many criteria that's likely to be and just a general outline of how it will work?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are three categories of people or of expertise required. They are guide, senior guide and trip leader. The criteria in terms of the training will vary from river to river and from day to day. Really it's a dynamic, changing industry. I shouldn't say day to day, but there could be times of the year when in fact you could have a lesser qualified person as a guide — I'm just saying it could be this way — whereas in the spring of the year or a more dangerous and more whitewater spring freshet time of the year, you may require someone with far higher qualifications to be a trip leader or a guide on that particular piece of water.

MS. EDWARDS: I was wanting to question specifically, Mr. Minister, on the levels for the actual personnel. Whether you require certain levels of qualification on any particular river at any particular time, I assume that doesn't have much to do with these criteria that you lay out for the personnel. There will be three classes of personnel and those will have the standard criteria, I would understand. Is that correct?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There will be standard prerequisites.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 8, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: With the leave of the minister, may we do 8 and 9 together? They relate to safety standards and inspection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

On sections 8 and 9.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Section 8 allows the registrar to establish safety standards respecting equipment, personnel or any other factor relating to safety, and under 9, the inspector can inspect at almost any time, including when a trip is in progress. Can the minister tell us who will do the inspecting? According to some information that we have from the registrar, the primary agency will be the RCMP. Can the minister tell us what kind of information or backup the RCMP will have in regard to this?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Any peace officer. But primarily the member is right, Mr. Chairman; it will be the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It could also be our conservation officer service. They have been trained as well, in the last little while, with respect to the standards of this act and the standards set by the director.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Because it deals with the RCMP, does that not fall under the federal government's jurisdiction? In which case, what kind of work has been done with the federal government?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The RCM Police deal with provincial statutes in a variety of their duties; this is just another that they have to consider. They enforce provincial and municipal statutes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: If we have a situation where the RCMP is inspecting a particular company or a particular trip, who will the RCMP report their findings to?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The registrar, in a variety of ways, I guess — through a conservation officer or through

[ Page 5248 ]

anyone they can contact in government. There is a good line of liaison and communications. The conservation officer service has worked with the RCM Police very closely for many years now, and that line of communications will stay in place.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MS. EDWARDS: This section, of course, lays out who commits an offence, and a number of offences are listed. Then in subsection (11) it says a person who commits a second or subsequent offence is liable to a penalty, which is outlined. Are the first offences without penalty?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, they're under the Offence Act. First is fines of $2,000 or six months in jail. It's also from the recommendation of the river rafting committee.

Sections 11 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.