[ Page 8057 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Structured Compensation Act (Bill 66). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8057

Tabling Documents –– 8057

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Nechako and Northeast,

Responsible for Native Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

On vote 58: minister's office –– 8058

Mr. Miller

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. B.R. Smith

Mr. Kempf

On vote 59: native affairs –– 8070

Mr. Kempf

On vote 60: development regions –– 8071

Mr. Kempf

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo,

Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 55: minister's office –– 8073

Hon. Mr. Strachan

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are the captain and the crew of the sail training vessel Californian. This fine-looking sailing ship is the state of California's official flagship tall ship, and it's in Victoria to celebrate Canada's birthday with us this weekend. Capt. Scott Bottoms and his crew sailed here via Hawaii from his home base in Dana Point, southern California. The Californian, modelled after the revenue cutter from 1857, is the flagship of the Nautical Heritage Society, which, like our own SALT Society, introduces students and adults to the world of the sea. I ask the members of this House to join me in a warm welcome to Captain Bottoms, his crew and their ship, which is in Victoria harbour. Would the House make them especially welcome.

MR. LOENEN: In the members' gallery is a personal friend, Audrey Sudd. She used to live in Richmond, but lives in Langley now. I've known Audrey since I was in my teens. She's accompanied by her son Hank, and I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

STRUCTURED COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. S.D. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Structured Compensation Act.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce Bill 66, intituled Structured Compensation Act. This bill provides the Supreme Court, in an action for damages for both personal injuries or an action under the Family Compensation Act, with the authority to make an order that will facilitate the payment of damages to a plaintiff by means of periodic payments rather than in a lump sum. This bill allows the court to encourage agreements between the parties for periodic payments where it considers that to be in the best interests of the parties.

Periodic payments may be beneficial to a plaintiff: for instance, where it's likely that the plaintiff would be unable or even unwilling to preserve a lump-sum compensation. Such agreements can, if properly structured, yield beneficial income tax treatment as well. The bill also provides that where the court is satisfied that a plaintiff is unreasonably preventing such an agreement, the court may order that all or part of the compensation be payable by periodic payments pursuant to amendment of the Law and Equity Act. Such an order would not yield the same beneficial income tax treatment, however.

It's my intention that this bill be introduced for first reading in this session of the Legislature only in order that it can be more fully considered by members of this House and so that we in government may have the benefit of a more extensive consultative process and discussion as to its desirability and workability prior to finalization of its provisions. I commend this bill for consideration and move that it be introduced and read a first time today.

Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Vant tabled the annual report for 1987-88 of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; a summary of expenditures for 1987-88 of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways; and the annual report of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation for 1988-89,

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation for the fiscal year 1988-89.

MR. ROSE: I want to raise a friendly point of order at this point concerning tabled documents. It's come to my attention that the research arms of both parties have a very difficult time securing tabled items from time to time. About the only way they can get a single copy, when only a single copy is tabled.... It isn't so much the case with annual reports, because there are usually 500 of those printed. But in the case of single-copy tabled items, I wonder if it would be possible — I'm asking the ministers for their cooperation on this — to put with a tabled item at least three copies: one for the Clerks' office and at least one for each of the research arms. The only way they can achieve them now is to go in there and photostat them, and sometimes they're long documents.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the opposition might note that I just tabled four copies of my report.

HON. MR. VANT: On the same point of order, I'll be very happy to send copies of what I tabled this morning to your research office.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The point is well taken, and I'm sure that copies will be available as needed.

On behalf of the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mr. Michael), I table the 1989 annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. There is a single copy, and I will personally have this one delivered to the opposition House Leader.

Orders of the Day

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

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

[ Page 8058 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Look, we have an anxiety attack going on over there.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR
NECHAKO AND NORTHEAST,
RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIVE AFFAIRS

On vote 58: minister's office, $279,458 (continued).

MR. MILLER: The government House Leader noted that I had an anxiety attack, but I can assure you, Mr. House Leader, that our House Leader keeps us on our toes. When he says, "Stand up," we have to stand up.

I want to continue with the minister on the topic I'd raised last night with regard to the resolution of aboriginal title. I did draw a distinction in my discussions between those native bands which are subject to treaty; in other words, where previously governments have recognized their responsibility and have entered into treaties with native Indian bands, as opposed to, really, the larger and more critical question where the government at both levels, both federally and provincially, has yet to resolve that and, I think more importantly, where the provincial government has said it's none of their responsibility.

Getting back to the particular bands I was talking about — the treaty bands — it's clear that the bands are entitled to what the treaty gives them; in other words, basically land. If we look at Alberta, there has been a combination of land and access to resources, cash, etc. The treaty doesn't rest on one item alone; it's a combination. One would think it would be a model that would be applied in future negotiations on the issue.

[10:15]

If the province takes a position, which they do, that it's not their responsibility, what is the minister's idea in terms of actions by the province that make it more difficult for those who have the responsibility to resolve the issue, in particular the tree-farm licence policy? The minister said last night he didn't want to talk about forest policy. I'm not canvassing the full range of forest policy with the minister at all I am talking about a government policy, presumably approved by cabinet, that would see the granting of a form of licence to private companies that, in my view, would make it more difficult to resolve in this particular case the obligation under those treaties.

I wanted the minister to explain what position he had taken on that, whether or not he agrees with my assumption. The minister had expressed his view that he was an advocate for native people, and if that is the case, I'd like to know what he has done in regard to this particular issue.

HON. MR WEISGERBER: I believe the member's questions are around whether or not McLeod Lake is entitled to treaty rights under Treaty 8, and that has been an ongoing and longstanding question — well, not longstanding in terms of the history of land claims, because there were questions, in the band's opinion, up until 1982 as to whether or not they were eligible for treaty rights under Treaty 8. Until 1982 they didn't even decide to make a claim under Treaty 8.

The history of Treaty 8 is that in the late 1800s and early 19009 a commission traveled around what is now Saskatchewan, Alberta, northeastern British Columbia and the Northwest Territories — all of which was at that time part of the Northwest Territories — with the idea of making treaties with bands in the area. They did that, for the most part, but there were exceptions. There were no treaties signed at Fort Nelson with the Fort Nelson band, with the Lubicon in Alberta or with the McLeod Lake band.

The government of British Columbia took the first step in settling the issue at Fort Nelson. In the early sixties, the Fort Nelson reserve was established under the terms of Treaty 8. The province of British Columbia undertook, at that time, to make land available under the terms of the treaty.

While they were doing that, part of the negotiations with the federal government went along these lines: "We're prepared to make this land available, but we'd like to know how many more of these issues we're going to have to deal with — how many more Treaty 8 claims are pending. We would like to establish a policy and make a settlement that would solve the Treaty 8 issue in British Columbia." At that time, the government of British Columbia was assured that the Fort Nelson issue was the only outstanding claim under Treaty 8. Part of the agreement to provide the land to satisfy the Fort Nelson band was that it was the last call that would be made on the provincial government to provide treaty lands.

The question in Alberta has still not been solved. The Lubicon question is very much like the Fort Nelson situation, and there are parallels with McLeod Lake. The difference with McLeod Lake is that they are the ones who came in very late in the process to make a claim. There are also questions as to what the western parameters were of the area the commissioners were authorized to make claims under. One line of thought is that it was the height of land at the Rocky Mountains. If that were the case, then the McLeod Lake band would not be eligible for treaty rights under Treaty 8.

The other argument is that it is all water that runs into the Arctic Ocean. All those watersheds were the area in which the commissioner was authorized to make treaties. If that is the case, then he obviously missed McLeod Lake, as he missed Fort Nelson and the Lubicon. For whatever reason, that happened in 1899 or 1901, the years that he was around making the treaties.

That's the nub of the question, and it is unresolved. The federal government has the responsibility to determine whether or not their treaty commissioner should have made a treaty with the McLeod Lake band. The provincial government takes the position that in the settlement of Fort Nelson, we satisfied our obligations to the federal government in an agreement surrounding the provision of lands under Treaty 8.

[ Page 8059 ]

MR. MILLER: I don't believe that the minister responded to my essential question. That is, does he not believe that the land policy would make it more difficult to resolve the issue, simply by the Crown allocating a proprietary interest in the land to a third party? In this case, it's to a major forest company. Would that not be an inhibiting factor in arriving at a resolution of the issue?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: A couple of things. First of all, I think that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) is not issuing any new tree-farm licences. I suppose that is the first situation. Secondly, there have been a couple of court cases where the McLeod Lake band has been successful in getting injunctions to prevent logging under tenures that are already in the area of their claim as part of their treaty entitlement. I don't think that at this point we should suspend all forestry activity in that immense part of the section of the province awaiting the federal government's decision as to whether or not McLeod Lake is entitled under Treaty 8. It seems to me that that's an issue that's going to take many years to settle. As with all kinds of treaty issues and other land-claim issues, they're not resolved in a matter of months or weeks, but in fact years. So I don't think it's in the best interests of anyone to suspend all activity in the area awaiting the settlement or the determination of whether or not McLeod Lake is entitled to Treaty 8 rights.

MR. MILLER: I want to make it clear that I have not suggested that we suspend forestry activity; never once have I suggested that. If the minister is under that impression, I want it to be clear to him and to everybody that I have not said that. I'm talking about a form of licence that the Crown has proposed as a major part of their forest policy, in this case, to allocate proprietary rights to the land to third parties. There are other means of the Crown allowing forestry activity to be ongoing through different forms of licence which do not grant a proprietary interest to the land. Surely the minister must understand the distinction between the forms of licence.

Now the minister says that the policy is under review, and that is true. No licences have been issued is the issue that I raised — which the minister still has not responded to — a consideration of the Crown in terms of this review of this TFL policy?

HON. MR WEISGERBER: I expect, then, that what the member is asking or suggesting is that the province should suspend the issuance of any tree farm licence pending the resolution of the land claims issue. If you're going to do it at McLeod Lake, it would seem only logical to follow that argument with the rest of the province. I don't see particularly the difference between the issue of comprehensive land claims as they cover the province And whether the members across the way like it or not, the cumulative comprehensive land claims do overlap and cover all of the province of British Columbia, and there are a substantial number of tree-farm licences that have been in effect for many years. I say again: I'm very reluctant to get into discussing forest policy with the member.

But I don't see the propriety of suggesting that McLeod Lake and the tree-farm licence application in that area is substantially different from all the other tree-farm licence applications in all of British Columbia — because they are all affected in one way or another by a land claim of some kind. So it would seem to me that the member is suggesting that I should lobby the Minister of Forests to suspend the extension of tree-farm licences and perhaps any form of forest tenure, pending the settlement of land claims. I don't believe that is in the best interests of the province or of any of the people of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: The minister is partly correct. What I would suggest is that the policy of the government, which is stated by the Minister of Forests, to expand the amount of timber.... It's difficult to quantify this in terms of land, because you have to translate a volume of timber to a specific area of land. It's even more difficult, because the Minister of Forests has undertaken that work and has produced a map.... It has taken all the applications by these timber companies for tree-farm licences, which they made at the request of the minister, and has put them on a map to illustrate their impact on the land base in the province.

It's very difficult for us or the citizens of this province to appreciate the impact on the land base, because the Minister of Forests refuses to release that map. If the Minister of Native Affairs has any suasion with the Minister of Forests, I would urge him to use it to try and convince the Minister of Forests to let the public have a look at that map — which so far he refuses to do. But yes, I agree with you in the sense that the Crown should suspend and shelve — I don't necessarily want to talk about the other reasons for shelving that policy, but I think there are many good ones — that policy to expand the amount of timber taken off tree-farm licences.

The current level is about 27 or 29 percent, and the government policy is to increase that up to 67 percent. That would have an enormous impact on the land base. It could be as much as 75 percent of the forest land base that would then be in this form of proprietary rights, tree-farm licences. You are absolutely correct. I think you should lobby within the cabinet to have that policy suspended, if only for the reason that it will make the resolution of aboriginal title extremely difficult. The illustration that I draw to your attention — it's in a different sphere but nonetheless, we're talking about land — is the parks issue, where clearly the fact that you have to compensate the licence-holder becomes a very large factor in making decisions about land use.

[10:30]

South Moresby is a very adequate illustration of that, where the amount of compensation that has to be paid to the licence-holder is quite significant. If we were to extend that in monetary terms throughout

[ Page 8060 ]

the province, we're looking at billions of dollars in additional costs that would be required to resolve the aboriginal title issue. So it's a very good suggestion that the minister has talked about, and I would urge him to follow it.

I assume that despite the British Columbia government's resistance to become involved in aboriginal title, there have been enough statements that you would like to see the issue resolved. I would ask the minister to comment on that. Is it the position of the government that they want to see the aboriginal title resolved through negotiations?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: There's probably nobody in British Columbia who would not like to see the issue of native land claims resolved, and I am certainly one of the vast majority who would like to see that happen.

As for the question of additional tree-farm licences, I appreciate the point the member makes. The fact is that most of the land mass in British Columbia is already covered by tenure of one form or another and is also claimed under a comprehensive claim by one band or another. So I think the situation is already there and very much a factor that would make resolution of land claims a very complex one, perhaps even more.

MR. MILLER: Given the minister's desire — and, I assume, the province's desire — to see the issue resolved, what steps has the minister taken, for example, to have meetings with the federal government to canvass the range of things that would result in a settlement?

I'd like the minister to take just a moment to elaborate on the issue and give us the perspective he has, perhaps drawing on some of the settlements that have taken place in other provinces on the treaty questions, and just briefly outline your views on what it would take to resolve the issue.

I don't think we do enough talking or discussion about what it is really going to take to resolve the issue. We talk a lot about the issue itself, but very little about the pieces of it. What are we talking about? I would appreciate, and I'm sure others would, the minister elaborating on that in terms of what steps he has taken to acquaint himself with the ins and outs of the issue and what some of the things are, in the minister's view, that would be required to resolve the issue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The question is one of responsibility, and I think that's quite clearly an area where this side and your party and your leader seem to agree.

When the federal government accepts its financial and legal responsibilities, we will be started down the path towards settlement of the issue. Until they're prepared to do that, we seem to be at a stalemate. We've looked at the settlements proposed in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, where the federal government is the only pocket, and we've tried to look at that in terms of what that would mean in dollars and land mass in British Columbia.

It's a very complex question, one that I can give you an opinion on — and I'm sure there are many opinions. But I know the Leader of the Opposition is anxious to get into the debate, and perhaps I'll sit down and allow him to do that.

MR. HARCOURT: I was interested in the minister's words when he said that people would like to get on with the land claims issue. My only response is: "Get on with it." That's essentially what we've been trying to say. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the people of British Columbia have been saying that we've got to sit down and deal with the major challenge of your ministry, and one of the major challenges for British Columbians, which is in a comprehensive way to sit down and negotiate fair settlements with the 100,000 or so aboriginal people in this province.

I'm pleased that the minister has finally recognized that we have to do that, and what we now add on this side of the House is: do it; go and join the negotiations with the Nisga'as right now and bring in a fair settlement and start that process that's been sitting there festering on the agenda of British Columbia for far too long. I would prefer to see the minister doing that and bringing a commitment to do it with his estimates, and not just say: "It's something that's complex, and we should be dealing with it."

I won't comment in an extensive way on some of the remarks of the minister the day before last, because he has issued an apology to the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) for his quite inappropriate remarks about him having lived too long in Vancouver, and I think his response laid it out very clearly that he appreciated what the member had to say about having suffered a number of the very serious problems that aboriginal people in this province have suffered, including tuberculosis, the loss of relatives through alcoholism, the despair of reserve life and the lack of opportunities.

But I will say that I found his remarks quite startling when he criticized my visit to Ingenika and the visit of the MLA for the riding to visit her own riding. That was a comment on the regional ministries and what we've been trying to say, which is that you want to make MLAs obsolete. Criticizing the MLA for the area for visiting her own constituents indeed shows the contempt that this government has for grass-roots democracy and for the MLAs in this Legislature. To then say that we weren't welcome, when we were invited there by Chief Michell of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, by one of the other leaders of that tribal council, by Chief Peters of the Babine and by the chief of the Ingenika band, when he wasn't even there and we were, on a beautiful day, flying over Lake Williston and coming into Ingenika.... To say we weren't welcome is the ultimate in arrogance. Again, it misses the point. The reason we were there is that you were not there. You are not doing your job.

[ Page 8061 ]

For you to allow a Third World community to continue in this province is unacceptable. For people to live in plywood shacks; for kids to go to schools in a building that's condemned by Indian Affairs; for you not to step in and take action to make sure that new reserve status happens and that the community can move into the new reserve on the bluffs of Williston Lake, by the Finlay River, to have a decent community and to finally have water that's not contaminated, some housing that people can live in, a school facility that's not condemned, employment, a settlement of outstanding land claims and a dignified way of life.... That's why we were there. We were there because you're not doing your job.

MR. R. FRASER: We've done more than you could imagine.

MR. HARCOURT: You aren't doing your job. The Premier has admitted it, and we agree with him. The Premier has admitted that we haven't done the right thing by the aboriginal people in this province, and we agree with him. You aren't doing your job.

When you have a people who have been displaced by Williston Lake for over 20 years and you haven't moved on it, I think the minister's criticizing us — the aboriginal member for Atlin, the MLA for the area, the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone); and the leader of the New Democratic Party and Leader of the Opposition — for visiting that community really missed the point. You missed the point on the complexities. We'd like to get on with land claims. Do it. You missed the point of why we were visiting Ingenika: because it's a disgrace that we allow conditions like that to exist in British Columbia.

MR. R. FRASER: Who assisted that community? This government.

MR. HARCOURT: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you want to look at what could have happened in Williston Lake many years ago, look at James Bay. Look at the settlement that was arrived at in James Bay. You could have done that 20 years ago instead of kicking people off their land and sending them to live as squatters in their own traditional area that has gone back for centuries. You could have dealt with it 20 years ago.

It would be instructive for you, Mr. Minister, to go and talk to the people of Quebec about the wonderful changes that have happened, with some flaws in the agreement.... It's not quite as perfect as it could be, but they did reach a settlement with the Cree and the people in northern Quebec around the James Bay agreement. I'll tell you, it's working. I've talked to Chief Joe Michell, who has seen the results, which are quite startling and gratifying. The dropout rate of the young people in the school system in James Bay is zero, because they have hope, they have an economic base and they have the commitment of their government to doing the right thing. That's all we're asking of you, your chortlers, your interrupters and those who don't want to see that their duty is to do the right thing. The right thing really isn't that complex; the right thing is to sit down and start the process of negotiating fair, comprehensive settlements with the aboriginal people of this province.

It's the lost opportunities and the lost lives of real people in this province that we're talking about. You can go from Ingenika to the Haida. You can go to the Charlottes. Two years ago, if you had been willing to sit down with the Haida, we could have had a model in terms of settlements, economic development, full employment, and natives and non-natives living peacefully and well together. It was a missed opportunity. Sit down and negotiate settlements there.

The attitude of this government shows up very clearly in the debate around the University Endowment Lands and the shameful performance of this government, and the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) in particular, who tried to take away the rights of the Musqueam to pursue their aboriginal title and hide them in the University Endowment Lands act. Those are the actions of this government. Whatever words you may utter, those are the actions of this government: refusing to deal with the Ingenika; refusing to join the table of the Nisga'as; refusing to make that park and to make happen, with the Haida and non-natives, that wonderful opportunity in the Charlottes; and taking away the rights of aboriginal people, as you did in the University Endowment Land Park Act.

It shows in the Premier's recent visit to meet with the western Premiers. There was nothing there about aboriginal self-government, nothing there about how to finally deal with the injustices that are happening with the aboriginal people in western Canada. The Premier didn't take an initiative and put it on the agenda, to finally start doing the right thing for the aboriginal people in British Columbia and western Canada.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier asks how we define aboriginal self-government. He is not prepared to sit down with the aboriginal people and negotiate that. He plays word games with them. Even worse, do you know what he does?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't sit on the fence all the time.

MR. HARCOURT: I'll tell you what: our position is very clear. We believe that aboriginal title exists and has not been extinguished, and we want to negotiate, not litigate. Your answer to that is wishy-washy. Your answer is to sit on the fence and visit Kingcome Inlet two weeks before the election to get the PR for it. What you set up is a Kingcome Inlet ministry here to get PR but no substance — no results for the native people. The Kingcome Inlet Premier: that's what you're remembered for.

[10:45]

[ Page 8062 ]

Mr. Chairman, what's required in this province is a provincial government that has the courage of the convictions of the people of British Columbia. Negotiations for just settlements with our natives, to the benefit of natives and non-natives alike, have to start now. That's what we were hoping to hear from the minister of native issues and the Premier during these estimates, rather than this yackety-yack that we are getting from them. They sound like rock-and-roll singers: "Yackety-yack, don't come back."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right; don't come back.

MR. HARCOURT: Don't come back to the Ingenikas, the Haidas, the Nisga'as, the aboriginal people throughout this province that you've let down so badly for so long.

I tell you, that's their B.C.; that's the Socred B.C. Our B.C., the New Democrat B.C. and the one that most British Columbians want, would start by saying what we've just said and what the courts are saying more and more. There are 400 fishing cases before our courts and $100 million being spent in litigation, which could go into schools that aren't condemned like the Ingenika school. It could go into agreements for reforestation, silviculture and tourism development, and native people being able to work instead of being on unemployment insurance and welfare. That's what could be done if you just said the right thing: that aboriginal rights and aboriginal title exists, hasn't been extinguished; we want to negotiate, we are coming to the table and we are going to reach a fair deal, to the benefit of natives and non-natives alike.

MR. R. FRASER: You're going to settle 125 percent of the whole province.

MR. HARCOURT: What the member for Vancouver South has just said is the racist crap that inflames the issues in this province so that we can't sit down and reach a decent settlement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon Leader of the Opposition that he used a word in there that is not really acceptable in parliamentary language.

MR. HARCOURT: I withdraw it. But I will tell you that statements like that — that the aboriginal people want 125 percent of this province — are the kind of fear mongering that leads us away from a decent settlement. It's a kind of inflaming of ignorance, and it is flaming ignorance to make that kind of a statement. You know better; you've been here long enough to know better, and you should stop making those kinds of statements about the aboriginal people and the Chinese Canadians in this province of ours. You'd be wise to learn to keep your mouth shut.

Mr. Chairman, not only would this be of tremendous benefit to natives and non-natives alike in this province, but it would be of tremendous benefit to business people, the free enterprisers. The free enterprisers who want to invest in this province would have stability and certainty. They wouldn't have lawsuits, blockades and bitterness if we sat down and negotiated settlements — people like Alcan, Fletcher Challenge and B.C. Gas. The merchants and the local people in each community in this province with significant aboriginal people would have an increased economic base.

It's of tremendous benefit to natives and non-natives alike. The only people who would lose would be lawyers, and thank God for that, because the $100 million that is going in their pockets would go towards the settlement with the aboriginal people of this province. It would go to doing the just and right thing.

In conclusion, we know what this ministry and this government are all about. It's the Kingcome Inlet government; it's the Kingcome Inlet PR ministry. I've been waiting for you to say it, and you won't say it: that we are going to negotiate just settlements that are of benefit to natives and non-natives alike. All the rest of your stuff is window-dressing; it's PR; it's the candy store. Until you sit down and do it — negotiate — you're not only wasting the time of British Columbians; you are continuing the injustice against the aboriginal people of British Columbia.

MR. B.R. SMITH: I think some of the substance hasn't been adequately canvassed here, because this minister has carried on the same tradition as his predecessor, the member for Vancouver South: that is, spending time in native communities to understand local needs, to try to work out practical economic arrangements, practical social opportunities, to help bands do things for themselves. Under that kind of policy, native welfare programs and native justice programs have taken root and have begun to flourish. Those are the kinds of solutions that natives at the band level in this province are anxious to have. They want to do things for the people on their reserve. They want to do things economically and for the social betterment of their people.

It is absolute twaddle to talk in this place about sitting down and negotiating land claims, when that issue is firmly before the court in the Gitksan case, no matter how much has been spent on legal fees. I tend to agree with the Leader of the Opposition that that's not where the money should be going. Money shouldn't be going into lawyers' trust accounts; the money should be going into bettering the lot of natives in this province. This case will be determined probably within the next year, and we now have a wonderful opportunity in this country to get some lasting solution to the aboriginal land claims question from the courts and from two new federal ministers and a new minister provincially. The new federal ministers have a positive attitude toward settling the aboriginal land claims issue. One of them is the former member of this House for Vancouver-Point Grey, who has done research and knows that field inside out. With her leadership nationally and the common-sense, open-minded approach of the provin-

[ Page 8063 ]

cial minister, we will solve the problem of native land claims.

Let me just say this, Mr. Leader of the Opposition: you conveniently forget that it was this government that set aside the park preserve on South Moresby in cooperation with the federal government. It was this government's bold initiative that set aside that wilderness for all time as a park reserve of Canada. Also it was this government that helped the Sechelt band to solve their particular economic development problem, which was to market their land tenure through leasehold or freehold, to give them access to the land title system of British Columbia. That was their solution and what they wanted to do. It wasn't the way other bands wanted to go in this problem, but interestingly, since the Sechelt have taken that step, other bands have expressed interest. Why shouldn't those bands have the right to their own economic development? Those, I think, were positive steps that were taken by this government.

Another thing, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, is in the field of education. I'm sure you've visited the Nass River on many occasions, but I defy you to find a more sensitive and a better system of native education in Canada than the one we see in the Nass Valley. There, through government encouragement, the native language has been taught in the core curriculum in all three of those schools in the Nass Valley. Through curriculum development funded almost 100 percent by the provincial government, the natives have been encouraged to teach the entire core curriculum in their native Nisga'a dialect. You can go into any one of those schools — Kincolith or Greenville or New Aiyansh — and you can see what's going on there. That's native education development and native stimulus. The energy in those communities is unsurpassed.

What you talk in this place is absolute twaddle, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. The flourishing of native education and the energy there is not confined to the Nass Valley.

MR. BLENCOE: You protest too much.

MR. B.R. SMITH: No, I don't. I've been there. I've been in each of those schools. I've watched those classes. I've seen those people.

MR. BLENCOE: You feel a little guilty over there.

MR. B.R. SMITH: You don't want to hear anything. You should go out and get a real job.

MR. BLENCOE: How about you?

MR. B.R. SMITH: A friend of ours was right, Mr. Member.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I feel very positive about this minister and about his approach. I think it's a common-sense, open approach. He's got an open mind and he's working towards band solutions, not turning the world upside down, not making speeches to national politicians but to ordinary natives in the bands of British Columbia. Really, in his heart of hearts I think the Leader of the Opposition agrees with that.

MR. HARCOURT: Before I make a couple of points on the statements of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I'd like to pay tribute to our legislative interns, one of whom, Charles Horn, worked actively with the ministry estimates and is going to go to work, I understand, with the native affairs secretariat. You are gaining a very valuable person to work with you. I'd like to thank him for his efforts on our behalf as one of the legislative interns to the New Democratic Party caucus.

As well, Eamon Gaunt, who was involved with the parks estimates and again did a very able job, will be, unfortunately, one of those lawyers that I was talking about earlier. But I wish him well as he moves on to becoming an international lawyer of some repute, which is what he would like to become. As well, we had Nancy Thompson, who is working on the Advanced Education and Job Training estimates and has prepared our critic extremely well in that area. Lastly is Stephen Williams, who worked on the Ministry of Health estimates. I'm sure that the members opposite would say the same about the four interns who have worked with them and end their intern activities this week. I wanted to put that on the record and thank our four interns. I'm sure the members opposite would say the same for the interns they have had working with them.

I will deal with three of the comments that came from the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I guess it was what you call a hit-and-run effort by him because he got his hits in and then he ran.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: I see. He had to go to a meeting with his caucus of one.

I would like to deal with three of the points that he brought up. First of all, he said that we should look at the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en court case where the question of aboriginal title is being addressed, and he said it would be solved within a year. That's wrong, Mr. Chairman. It will not be solved within a year because this is a case that will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada sometime in 1992-93. It's got to go through the B.C. Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court of Canada. Even then it's going to take some time. We could avoid all of that taxpayers' money going into the pockets of scores of lawyers and tying up courts and the Chief Justice of this province for months and months on end by sitting down and negotiating. That's exactly my point: negotiate, don't litigate. Negotiate a fair settlement.

I find that the response from the ex-Attorney-General, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head was much too glib to the real solution, which is negotiation, not litigation. It's just going to push off a just settlement, the fair settlement, that could be reached with the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en and all the other tribal councils and bands in this province.

[ Page 8064 ]

The second point that he made was in giving a few examples. That's what this government's all about, a few token examples of a pilot project here, a child welfare contract there, an education system in the Nass, or a Sechelt municipal status to show that they're doing something. It's part of the Kingcome Inlet PR effort of this government so it'll show up in their ads at election time. They'll be able to say that they're doing something about the aboriginal people, and they're not. It's tokenism. It's cynical tokenism. It's not dealing with the fundamental injustices. That's what has to be addressed.

[11:00]

Lastly, the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head mentioned the Nass, the Nisga'as and the education system up there. I'm glad he did bring that up because it was the NDP, Eileen Dailly, who introduced that education system. It was the NDP who started that. It was the NDP who started the negotiations in the cut-off lands. It was the NDP who started the dialogue with the aboriginal people in this conference after the Calder case came down. That was 15 years ago. What have we got to show since then except a few token examples of economic development — a school board here, a child welfare contract there? We don't have a government, 15 years later, that's prepared to sit down and do what I outlined earlier.

The tragedy is, Mr. Chairman, that instead they fear monger about how they're going to take over our lands and houses. That's not what the aboriginal people do. If they'd talk to the aboriginal leaders of this province, they'd know that the aboriginal leaders say that they want to share in a sustainable way the forests, the rivers in the great God-given province that we have in British Columbia. They want to share it for our mutual benefit. If the member in his many years, the member for Vancouver South, who is supposed to know better and is supposed to have talked to the aboriginal people in this province, had sat down and talked to them, he would understand that they're not talking the Torrens system of ownership in this province; they're not talking fee simple; they're not talking leases and licences. They're talking about the aboriginal use of the lands that for 5,000 years the aboriginal people have been using for their sustenance in a sustainable, spiritual way.

They're not talking the Torrens system that we imported from Australia to British Columbia that gives fee simple, that says we own this and here's my deed; here's my chunk of land. That's not the aboriginal concept of ownership. The member should not talk that way, because he just feeds the fear of the British Columbians who are non-natives who worry about the title to their house, access to the forests and their tree-farm licences. It's not going to affect British Columbians that way. That kind of fear mongering is unacceptable for this important issue. We should be bringing people together in full knowledge and in good faith rather than tearing them apart with those kinds of statements that feed into the fear of people.

I find it sad that we have not only had a lack of a statement from the minister and the Premier that we're going to sit down and negotiate fair settlements, but we have some of his members making statements that take us in exactly the opposite direction. That's the kind of statement that we've come to expect from the member for Vancouver South. We thought that he'd learned from his intemperate remarks about the Chinese students in this country; we thought he'd learned from those remarks; we thought that he would try and be part of the solution, not part of the problem, that he would stop being negative and be part of the positive solution to finally sit down and negotiate fair settlements for the aboriginal people in this province, fair settlements that will be a benefit to natives and non-natives alike.

HON. MR WEISGERBER: First of all, I'd like to join the opposition leader in acknowledging the good work that Charles Horn did in the ministry as an intern, and we certainly look forward to having him back as an employee.

Secondly, there's just a comment that I must make, having now been partway through my first estimates and having been of the belief for many years that the party across the way would be a disaster were they ever to be in government. I guess it was reinforced during these estimates by the fact that I don't think you're tough enough to be in government. You criticize all day long. Everybody who stands up you criticize, but the way you're wounded by criticism of your actions, I think you're going to have to toughen up a bit, guys. This place is a bit of give and take, and I'm surprised that someone with the experience of the opposition leader would be cut so easily in debate.

In any event, Ingenika is an interesting situation, because whether you like it or not, everything that happened in Ingenika is a result of improvements that this government has sought by the former ministers, and 1972-1975 — we hear about it all time — provided an opportunity. The issue of Ingenika was there in 1972-1975; it was readily available for resolution, but it didn't happen. It took our government to go to Ingenika, to meet with the people there, to come back and recommend changes, changes that have been going on for the last two and a half or three years. The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) recognized that while conditions there are deplorable, they've improved since she was first there. Those are the actions of our government.

The Premier met with Chief Izony and Chief Pierre and made a commitment to establish a new reserve and not to let federal-provincial negotiations hold up any longer the establishment of those reserves. The very day that you were in Ingenika, the reason that there weren't a lot of people from the Carrier-Sekani group is that they were down in Vancouver negotiating with the federal and provincial governments the details of the establishment of that reserve. I think that's a very positive step. I read into the record last night comments from the chief negotiator for the Carrier-Sekani, and if you'd like to look at Hansard, certainly you'll get an idea of the

[ Page 8065 ]

tone of his comments. If you'd like a copy of his letter, I'd be happy to provide it to you.

The candy-store issue has been canvassed as well. Certainly there are members across the way who think that major economic development strategies, projects, justice initiatives, social service initiatives and education initiatives are candy-store dressing. I just don't believe that. I don't accept it; nor do I think many native leaders in this province accept that.

The member stands up and makes very comfortable statements about settling land claims: we should get on with the business, we should sit down and do it. Quite a few months ago the opposition leader wrote to me to clarify the position of the NDP as it related to land claims. I wrote him back on April 13 and just outlined half a dozen tough problems. They were not the toughest problems, perhaps, but some of the kinds of tough problems, tough decisions, that you would have to consider before entering those kinds of negotiations. Obviously the opposition leader must be very busy — perhaps travelling around the province, perhaps visiting Ingenika and other things; perhaps the mail service is bad. But since April 13, I've not received a reply to any of the questions that I outlined in my letter. Those are key questions. Who pays? How much do you pay? What do you do when the federal government turns down a claim? Those are basic questions that you don't address in the comfortable statements that you make about settling comprehensive land claims. Those are the real issues.

In your interview in Politics and Policy that we noted yesterday, you say — as we say — that the federal government has the legal and financial responsibility to settle land claims. The difference between us is that we say: once that position is established, then we go forward. It makes no sense to pretend that you're going to go to negotiations and somebody else is going to pay, but you're going to start negotiations without having established that. Inappropriate. We have a basic difference. I'm sure yours is sincere; ours is also. It's a position that has been taken by successive governments for the last hundred-plus years.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of dialogue that we should be having in British Columbia. Those are the tough questions. But you're the government; you're the minister. Those are the questions that you should be coming forward with answers to for British Columbia, so that you can get down to the table. You should be coming to this House with some answers to those questions, not asking me as the Leader of the Opposition how we're going to get the federal government to the table, to admit their responsibilities. They're prepared to admit their responsibilities in most other provinces in this country; why can't they sit down with you and work out a cost-sharing formula? Why can't you arrange that? Why can't you come forward with some recommendations for the structure of the negotiations, for what the province can bring to the table in terms of access to resources, of your jurisdiction over the administration of justice, over natural resources, over education?

Why are you not prepared to come up with some answers to those questions? You ask me as the Leader of the Opposition. You've got the staff on the other side there. You've got the people to supply those answers. So the next time you write a letter, with all the staff resources that you have, I'd appreciate it if you would come up with some answers. You're not supposed to be just asking questions. You're the minister; you're supposed to be coming up with the answers to those questions. And the answers to those questions are for you to show some bloody leadership. You have to show some leadership, to come up with some answers, to get at that table and start negotiations.

We're looking at all those issues, and we are going to have the answers. We have a dialogue going with the native leaders throughout this province so that we're ready to act. We're ready to sit down at the table and negotiate. We're looking forward to that opportunity. We're not afraid of it like this Social Credit government is. We don't exploit it for political advantage like this Social Credit government does. We're prepared to address one of the important issues in British Columbia, which is unfinished business of British Columbians, to sit down and negotiate in good will and in good faith a fair settlement of the outstanding aboriginal issues.

We are looking forward to the chance to become the government of this province and to act, not just sit here and whine and snivel about how complex it is and ask the Leader of the Opposition for the answers that you should have yourself.

You've got it wrong, Mr. Minister. If you want to come over here and be the opposition.... I hope you won't have that opportunity, because you won't be here. But if you want to ask those questions to the Minister of Native Affairs when you're in opposition, we'll give you the answers. With the good staff that you've got there, who can supply those answers, why don't you ask them? That's what you pay them for. We've got some answers too, and we'd be glad to act on those answers and bring about just settlements.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Just very briefly, certainly we've been supplying the answers all along. History does have a way of repeating itself. If you look back to pre-1972, the leaders of your party were making the same promises in 1969, '70 and '71, and then you sent your minister out onto the steps of this Legislature to tell the native people gathered there that the responsibility was the federal government's. It's easy when you sit over there to have those pat answers.

[11:15]

MR. KEMPF: Before getting into the estimates, I want to get on the record once again. I bring up this subject only because it was done by the member across the way in speaking about the park created on the Queen Charlotte Islands, the South Moresby park, and how that positively affected the Haida

[ Page 8066 ]

people. I don't very often disagree with my friend the former Attorney-General, but I certainly want to place on the record once again my feelings with respect to the disaster that happened in South Moresby when a national park was created. It was not only a disaster for the Haida people. I know what the Haida people wanted, because I was fully in those negotiations at the time as the minister responsible for parks in this province.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

What happened at South Moresby was an absolute disaster — a black mark on this province forever, because national parks are forever. The creation of a national park on South Moresby on the Queen Charlotte Islands was not only a disaster for the Haida people of that area; it was a disaster for the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada. It was wrong, and I'll put it on the record again. It set aside a part of British Columbia where we could have had the best of all worlds. We threw it away. I look directly at the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in saying that. We threw it away, Mr. Minister. We threw away an opportunity for the Haida to be self-sufficient. We threw away an opportunity for British Columbians not only to really enjoy that area but also to benefit from it.

Seventy percent of Frank Beban's crew were Haida. They're now unemployed. I sat with the Haida people. I knew what they wanted. What should have been done on South Moresby was to create a provincial park, to give the Haida an opportunity to oversee that park and the opportunity, perhaps through Frank Beban's operation, to log parts of the park which should be logged — perhaps in a different manner than was being prescribed. But knowing every inch of South Moresby as I do, because I was there many times, I knew perfectly well that the Haida were absolutely right. They didn't want a national park for South Moresby. They didn't want it set aside in perpetuity so that no one could enjoy it.

That's what has happened now. If you haven't got the price of a very expensive plane trip or if you haven't got a boat that's worth $50,000 or $100,000, you can't enjoy South Moresby. It's set aside out of the reach of British Columbians, out of the reach of any benefit of the Haida people and out of the reach of Canadians.

I just want to say a few more words about this minister's responsibility, as he put it, as the advocate for Indians in British Columbia. I'm sorry that the Premier has left the chamber, because I wanted to talk to him this morning as well with respect to this subject. I wanted to thank him for taking my advice, for forming a ministry responsible for Indian people in British Columbia. But to have it as an appendage, a wart on the back of a super minister of state, was not my idea. Certainly we need a minister in British Columbia who is the advocate of the Indian people, because whether some people on those benches over there believe it or not, it's one of the most difficult, most important and most pressing problems that we have in the province.

I'm talking now of the Indian land claims, the aboriginal title. Again I say, as I said last night, that whether or not you agree with Indian land claims is not the point at all. Indian land claims have to be addressed and solved in order for this province to move ahead with all the economic development we talk about. I am not saying that we as British Columbians need to resolve them, that's not our place. But to have a pussycat minister who goes cap-in-hand to the bureaucrats in Ottawa, pleading with them to do something about the land claims in British Columbia, is not what is required.

We heard last night that he doesn't intend to break down doors or to raise his voice. He just intends to be a pussycat with hat in hand, going to the bureaucrats in Ottawa. That's not going to solve it, Mr. Minister, whether you believe it or not.

At noon tomorrow I will be addressing a group of Indian people in my constituency at the Indian law centre in Bums Lake, and I want to be able to tell those people what is new with respect to what this minister is doing in Indian affairs in British Columbia.

I asked for information from the minister's office, and I've gone through what I received. I see absolutely nothing new in the last 18 months. So in these estimates today, I think it's incumbent on the minister to give me that material so I can speak intelligently to that group of Indian people tomorrow at lunch.

I spoke not six weeks ago to the Babine bands council in my constituency. I don't know who this minister is speaking of when he says he is talking to the Indian people, because these people sure didn't know who he was, or what he was attempting to do for the Indian people.

The minister talked last evening about doing all kinds of things for the Carrier-Sekani people. What has he done? What has he accomplished in the last 18 months? For whom? What bands has he done things for? He personally, as the minister responsible and an advocate of the Indian people in British Columbia: what has he done and for whom?

I look at the material I received, and there is absolutely nothing new. Your predecessor started the Ingenika situation, and I give him a lot of credit for that. But in the case of the state — and the minister doesn't like that word.... But you know, I see it on all of his correspondence: minister of state. The minister told me last night that there is no such thing in British Columbia. You'd better get your letterhead changed, Mr. Minister, if that's the case.

It's the same situation that exists with the Ministry of State for Nechako and Northeast. What's happening? We will get into that. I want to talk about participatory democracy. Again, I am sorry that the Premier isn't here, because I think he needs a couple of lessons in participatory democracy. I am prepared to tell him exactly what participatory democracy is, and it's not what we have in British Columbia today; I can tell you that much.

[ Page 8067 ]

I will give you example after example, being one who tried to opt into a participatory democracy system and failed miserably through no fault of my own. Again I will give examples.

It's all very well for politicians to talk about what they are doing for the Indian people. Politicians have done it for 118 years in Canada, and it would appear that it's continuing. But my idea of a ministry of Indian affairs in British Columbia certainly was not for it to be an appendage or a wart on another fake ministry.

With that, I think there are others who might want to speak about Indian affairs. I want to get into the other side of the minister's so-called responsibility and talk at length about participatory democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Okanagan South requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SERWA: Rather than make an introduction, I would request leave to say thank you and goodbye, but I think now that I have your permission I'll go ahead.

On behalf of the Social Credit caucus, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the effort on our behalf by the interns assigned to the Social Credit caucus. I would like to thank all of the interns for their hard work on our behalf, for their cheery enthusiasm and outstanding competence and the quality of the work that they turned out for the Social Credit caucus. I note that they all share in common degrees in political science as well as a number of other degrees.

I fully expect from the quality of these individuals that the names and faces will surface and resurface many times in association with the government of the province of British Columbia, because they are exceedingly competent people.

I would like to specifically thank Maria D'Archangelo, who will be going on to law school; Freda Jung, who was my intern, who is going to work for the Ministry of Forests; Barry Penner, who has also made the decision to further his career and future by going on to law school; and also Elaine Woodrow, who has made the decision to continue working for the Social Credit caucus as a research assistant. I would like to thank them all on behalf of the Social Credit caucus and on behalf of the government of the province of British Columbia. Will you please join with me in acknowledging their efforts on our behalf.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: For the member's speech in Burns Lake tomorrow, I suggest that if he'd like to talk about native legal issues — which I assume is what he was planning to do — I'd refer him to the "Access to Justice" report. There's $2 million targeted toward improved delivery of justice for native people. I suspect that the facility you are going to speak at is as a result of part of that funding

As far as activities that this minister has been involved in that have affected your constituency, your constituents have been beneficiaries of the almost $5 million committed to drug and alcohol services through native friendship centres over the next three years, the $2.5 million in improvements to native justice and the $2.9 million in new native education funding. In the Nechako region, but not necessarily in your constituency, there's $400,000 to the Lakalzap band for their diking project and the Tahltan band for their road building projects, which are now employing 53 Tahltan people in the Dease Lake-Telegraph Creek area. We've provided about $100,000 for a recreation centre for one of the bands in your constituency and an ongoing commitment in support of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation.

[11:30]

As to other specific projects with the Carrier Sekani, I assume that you meet and talk reasonably regularly with Ed John. We've been meeting and dealing with him on a number of issues in the Fort St. James area and other parts of your constituency. Perhaps you might want to touch base with him if you have some questions as to the details of those agreements. I'd much rather he provided them than I.

MR. KEMPF: That's my point exactly. You would think that when you request information from the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast and Responsible for Native Affairs, you would get that information. What the minister has just said will certainly lead me into talking about participatory democracy. Which of those initiatives came out of your ministry, Mr. Minister? You talk and you talked last night about those things for Indian people in British Columbia that come from line ministries. What is it that the minister responsible for Indian affairs in British Columbia is doing?

You talk a lot about how you've talked to this person and to that person. Yes, I've talked to Ed John. I've known Ed John for a number of years. I consider Ed John a very good friend of mine, and we talk regularly about what he wishes for the Indian people and what he wishes the province of British Columbia would do for the Indian people. No problem with that at all.

What I want to know is — you've mentioned a number of things — do you sign contracts with the Indian people out of your ministry? If so, what contracts did you sign to bring these things about, or were they in fact brought about through line ministries and not through the ministry responsible for Indian affairs at all? How many of these initiatives that you've just given me were brought forward through the minister responsible for Indian affairs?

I don't see it in your budget. You talked about a $6 million budget last night. If you look at the estimates — and I've got both estimate books — you'll still see that through your ministry, excluding a fund that's been in place for two decades in this province, you have a budget of scarcely over $2 million to be the advocate for the Indian people of British Columbia. That's what I'm getting at, and that's what I'll get at when I talk about participatory democracy.

[ Page 8068 ]

I listened very intently to the eloquent introduction that the minister gave to his estimates. How quickly they learn. What I saw in that eloquent introduction was the height of robotics. When they talk about economic development, I guess they're thinking a lot about robotics. I really wonder about that group of ministers over there, who surely must be wound up in the Premier's office at the first of the week, their tapes changed so that they can go out to the people of British Columbia and spread the good word. I listened intently to that introduction to find something new. What the minister fails to realize is that the area he talks about, which makes up about two-thirds of his state in British Columbia, is an area that I've lived in for 31 years and represented in this House for going on 14 years.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: What has that got to do with the conversation? The government Whip interjects. That's all that back bench is good for — interjections. Every time you get near the quick as far as a minister is concerned, you get an interjection from one of the backbenchers. They should wake up and realize that it's not the front benches they represent in this chamber; it's the people who sent them here. That's participatory democracy. That's really listening to those people you talk so much about, Mr. Minister.

I've listened very intently to all that the minister has said since beginning his estimates. He talked of opportunities that have been identified in the last 18 months in the state of Nechako and Northeast. What are those opportunities? Let's hear of them. Form committees that form subcommittees that the democratically elected representative for the area is conveniently left off of: is that this government's idea of democracy? What kind of participatory democracy is it that does end runs around a duly elected representative? Whether you like that representative telling the truth or not, what kind of participatory democracy is that?

The minister spoke highly of regionalization and decentralization and how they're working well. The Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast nods yes. We didn't see much in his estimates to prove that, and we canvassed him very well. He should go back and read Hansard, because we found out nothing. I apologize to that member; we did find out that he believes a little more in participatory democracy than does the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast — a little more.

In speaking highly of this great regionalization and decentralization, he referred to it as a democratic process where decisions were made, recommendations were made, resolutions were brought forward. Where are they? Show them to me, Mr. Minister. What has been resolved that wasn't in the works prior to this system coming on the scene in my constituency? What recommendations have come forward, and from whom? Who makes the recommendations? Who sets the priorities?

I would be concerned in two areas if I were you, on just one subject, and I'll bring this one up because I want it to be on the record. It involves a road to one of your Indian bands, the Tachiex Road, which in this year was supposed to get 14 miles of asphalt. Did the minister know it's been cancelled? Whose recommendation was that? Who set the priority that perhaps the money should be kept for next summer, prior to a provincial election? Who sets the priorities? Who makes the recommendations? What happens with those recommendations? Where are the resolutions?

You spoke highly of the committees, and I know there are some very good people on those committees, because I know practically each and every one of them personally. But what reports have they produced? Where are those reports? If reports have been produced by these people spending taxpayers' dollars, surely they're available to the public. Can the minister table them? I think it's incumbent on the minister in these estimates to table those reports, recommendations and resolutions and tell this chamber what has happened because of those decisions.

What is the minister doing in the area he represents for the plight of the independent loggers? They are dropping like flies, Mr. Minister, taking with them a whole way of life that has existed for many decades in the area you represent. What are you doing for them besides calling a meeting of the forestry committee and having the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) there, and conveniently leaving off the list of people to be there the member for Omineca? What was the trouble? Didn't the minister want to be there if the member for Omineca, the former Minister of Forests, was going to be there? Was that it? Was a deal struck with your economic development liaison officer to leave the member for Omineca off the list? Was that it?

I think the people of Omineca have a right to know — not me, because I'm not here for me; I'm here for the people of Omineca, those who voted for me, those who sent me here, and for all of those others who didn't vote for me whom I represent. That's why I'm here; not for me. That's called participatory democracy, when you're here to speak whether or not the government or the opposition or the minister like it. That's what I believe to be democracy.

[11:45]

I want to hear what the minister is doing about Bond Bros., the sawmill which, because it doesn't have sufficient timber, because it's a home-grown, British Columbia-owned family operation, is going down the tube. It has only 18 percent of its requirements under tenure from the provincial government. It is a company that's tried for years to obtain some fairness in the forest industry of British Columbia. What are you doing for Bond Bros.? What are you doing for those 100 people? You talk a lot about jobs created — how about jobs saved? Let's talk about that for a while.

I see the green light is on and I'm going to have to sit soon, but I want to know about those great accomplishments of which the minister speaks that

[ Page 8069 ]

have happened in the last 18 months in the state of Nechako and Northeast. You can call them development regions if you like, but they are what they are; they are what it was set out to be: they are states within British Columbia, which I'm not even sure is constitutional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret to inform the member that his time has expired.

The member for Alberni requests leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I would like the House to help me welcome to the House today my mother from Qualicum Beach, a distinguished businesswoman in her own right, and my brother from Venlo, Holland, here for his daughter's graduation. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: I want to go on....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that an introduction for which leave was required of the House constitutes an intervening speaker. Therefore I would submit to you, sir, that the member for Omineca will have to wait until there is an intervening speaker in this committee. The introduction by the member for Port Alberni was not an intervening speaker and neither was this point of order.

MR. BARNES: I don't want to actually enter the debate at this point. There seems to be a matter being pursued by the member for Omineca, and although I did want to raise another matter, in deference to the member and in order that he may pursue his objective, I'm willing to yield my position.

MR. KEMPF: I certainly thank my former colleague for Prince George South. I know that there are things he doesn't want to hear, that the member for Omineca wants to put on the record of this House The member for Prince George South seems these days to have a very bad case of self-importance Again we can talk about participatory democracy. I was sent here to speak on behalf of my constituents and speak I shall on their behalf.

We talked about the Bond Bros. sawmill situation in Vanderhoof. While we're on the subject of Vanderhoof, I want to know from this minister — seeing that he's so concerned about all those people who are already represented by a duly elected MLA; however, we're appreciative of all the help we can get in north central British Columbia — what part the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast has played in the Alcan project. How has he intervened on behalf of the people of Vanderhoof with respect to the commitment made by that company prior to starting the hydro project to build a pulp mill that would service and provide employment and would be a kind of trade-off for the damage that will be done — all of it in my constituency — at Kemano 2?

What has the minister done with respect to intervention in that situation for the people of Vanderhoof? Nothing is being done about a pulp mill in Vanderhoof — conveniently forgotten by this multinational company as soon as it started work on the tunnel for the second hydroelectric plant.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's wrong.

MR. KEMPF: If it's wrong, Mr. Member for Prince George South, I would suggest that you stand in your place and tell us what's right, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will in my estimates.

MR. KEMPF: Please do that. Mr. Chairman, in the meantime, bring the member to order.

Forgotten completely. A promise made prior to starting a hydroelectric project — I'm going to get into the details of that, I hope, in another minister's estimates — for producing additional hydroelectricity that they don't require at all. In fact, they're producing too much now for their needs at Kitimat. I want to know what quiet deal was made between the Aluminum Co. of Canada and the province of British Columbia for the purchase of that electricity.

I want to talk a moment about the expenditure of almost $1.5 million for two offices that, to me, serve absolutely no other purpose than those of pure, blatant politics. I want to know what really is done, what is accomplished through those offices paid for by the people of British Columbia, people paid out of those offices to do end-runs around duly elected representatives. There's $1,421,384 in this fiscal year to pay for the activities of those two offices, one of them in my area, $710,692. I just want to know what they do. What is it that those offices accomplish that couldn't be accomplished through the use of democratically elected representatives who are already in those areas, three of whom sit in cabinet already?

Tell me what they're for. Why were they set up? What does that economic development liaison officer do? How much is he paid? What were his credentials? How was it that he got hired? Was it because he was a former campaign manager for the present Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker)? Surely not, Mr. Chairman. Surely not. Surely that wasn't his credential. Was it because he's now an executive member of the Skeena Social Credit Association? Oh, surely not! There'll be no partisan politics in this situation.

Does the minister not think it's a conflict of interest? Of course, I guess not. We were promised conflict-of-interest rules by that administration two and a half years ago and haven't seen any yet. Does the minister not think it's a conflict of interest that an economic development liaison officer, who surely must be talking about the loaning or giving away of government dollars, is sitting on the executive of the Skeena Social Credit Constituency Association? I'd

[ Page 8070 ]

like to know what the minister thinks about that. Does he not think that that's a conflict of interest? That economic development liaison officer, giving people advice as to how to get money from government: who's he giving that advice to? Does he kind of lean to the right or to the left when giving that advice, given his position, his very political position? What were his credentials, Mr. Chairman? Cushy, cushy situation.

MR. PETERSON: Where are you leaning, Mr. Member?

MR. KEMPF: Never mind where I'm leaning.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, the government Whip worries about the direction in which I lean. Mr. Whip, I go right down the centre, representing the people of Omineca as I'm sent here to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please address the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, certainly I'll address the Chair.

I want to go back for a moment to participatory democracy and ask the minister what he thinks about news releases — news releases, admittedly, under the name of the Minister of Forests; however, news releases that use the name of the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast, a name which I can't utter in this chamber, Mr. Chairman, because of the rules. But that same news release, rather than mentioning the name of the duly elected representative for that area, chooses to use the name of the local mayor. Never before seen. And I go through a lot of press releases. Every day there's a half-inch stack on my desk of that kind of propaganda.

[12:00]

What does he think of that kind of blatant politics? It's blatant politics. I guess perhaps it's because that mayor is one of the people who's just a little bit interested in warming this seat. Oh, no, that wouldn't be why, Mr. Chairman; I'm sure it would not.

While on the subject of participatory democracy, let's talk for a little while about correspondence and about a minister of the Crown keeping a duly elected representative informed of what's being said to local governments in the area he represents.

You can send all the letters you like to the municipal councils in my area, and I'll find out what you're saying to them without them being copied to me, because I get the minutes of every municipal council in my constituency. I find that the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast writes them about the possibility of a cancer clinic in Prince George and about tourism boundaries. Let's talk about tourism boundaries, and how you're representing that very huge area, mostly made up of the state of Nechako and Northeast, with respect to tourism boundaries.

But I just want to ask the minister before we get away: do you think it's really participatory democracy when you do end runs around the duly elected, democratically elected MLA for the area? I want the minister's view on that subject. It's very important — not to me particularly, but to those I represent in this chamber. Is that what you call participatory democracy: hiring political hacks to do endruns around duly elected representatives? Is that what the minister calls participatory democracy? Open government: open to whom? Participatory democracy indeed.

The minister writes me a letter about being considered a member of one of the committees for the state of Nechako. Not only does he deny me access to the committee, but he writes: "As you are not a member of this group, I did not feet any obligation to advise you of that meeting, nor do I intend to advise you of future advisory board meetings." Who do these people advise?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am forced to advise you....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I've got lots more to say, and there will be lots more time to say it in.

Vote 58 approved.

On vote 59: Native Affairs, $2,088,068.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to regurgitate the minister's responsibility as the advocate of Indian affairs in British Columbia. But if he chooses to sit there mum in this chamber and not answer straightforward questions asked by this member on behalf of those whom he represents, then I guess we're going to have to regurgitate the whole thing again.

The minister talked highly of his position as the advocate for Indian affairs in British Columbia. I've got a couple more questions. If I don't get answers to the ones I've asked, I might as well have more on record that I don't get answers for.

I heard the debate that went on between the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and the minister earlier with respect to the possibility of TFL rollovers. I want to ask the minister who he would rather see in control of the lands of British Columbia. Would he rather see that land in the hands of our aboriginal people, in order that all British Columbians might benefit, or would he rather see that land in the hands of offshore multinational corporations? I guess that was the question the member for Prince Rupert was asking. I mean, he surely didn't get an answer, as I am not getting answers. It's typical of ministers over there to stonewall this chamber, to sit there and not answer the questions of duly elected representatives. You are going to have to answer sometime.

The question is: who would you rather see in control of lands in British Columbia — our Indian people or offshore multinational corporations? That's the question. It's a very simple question. The minister

[ Page 8071 ]

could answer these questions very quickly and we'd get out of here, as everybody seems to want. But I want answers to my questions. We are here in estimates not just to ask questions but to get answers.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Sit down and let him answer.

MR. KEMPF: I know the rules of this chamber as well as you do.

Another question for the minister. We talked a lot about them being different. I don't agree with that, and neither does the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), as you very well heard last night. Do you or do you not consider the Indian people British Columbians, and if you consider them British Columbians....

Oh, the minister is leaving the House. He doesn't want to hear. He not only doesn't want to hear, he doesn't want to answer.

Does the minister consider the Indian people British Columbians? Because I am sure if it were another group of British Columbians with the same problem that the Indian people have with respect to land claims, they'd be knocking down doors in Ottawa to get it resolved. So I can just naturally surmise that perhaps the minister considers them lesser British Columbians than others. Is that the case?

If it isn't the case, then why isn't the minister speaking with a strong voice in Ottawa, insisting on the resolution of the Indian land claims? If he is, as he says, really listening to the Indian people, whose first wish would be to see the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa abolished, why isn't he in Ottawa very forcefully telling the federal government that that's what the people of the province of British Columbia want?

It would appear by the activity over there that the group on the front benches would dearly like to get out of there. The minister can either get up now and answer my questions — and I am sure he has forgotten most because I didn't see him write down any of them — or we can adjourn this House until another date and perhaps try and get answers to the questions then.

If we can't adjourn this House to another date to discuss these estimates, perhaps I will have to go out into this province and tell the people what it is that the minister didn't say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Vote 59 approved.

On vote 60: development regions, $1,421,384.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER. It would seem an opportune time to touch on a few of the comments the member for Omineca made with regard to the Nechako development region and regional development generally. He wonders about the kinds of things that might have happened or that we might have done.

First of all, I suppose we have identified a wide range of opportunities in both regions — substantial opportunities. Nechako actually led the way in British Columbia for the development regions when we engaged Urban Systems to bring together the economic development strategies for all of the communities in Nechako into an outline of opportunities and constraints in the region. I'm sure that if the member hasn't received one, he'll have one on his desk before he goes home tonight. But I think he probably got one; he probably never read it. He got one, I believe, in Fort St. James when he was at one of those meetings where I suppose he demonstrated his cooperative spirit. It was an experience for all of the folks there, and probably a bit of an embarrassment for a number of folks from Omineca who had to sit through it.

We've also looked at opportunities for the forest industry. Indeed, we do have a forestry committee, one that the member sits on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: And he doesn't always attend the ones he is told about, so that's kind of a saw, I guess.

[12:15]

With regard to Bond Bros., we've been in negotiation with the principals of that company and the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), in an attempt to look at ways that private operator might find a solution to his problems. The latest word I have is that another small business man will buy out that company, one that the present owner has been trying to sell for three or four years now.

The Alcan situation. We met with Bill Rich and talked about the commitment Alcan has to a pulp mill, looked at the incentives and looked at the proposal calls they've put out for a venture partner. Alcan isn't in the business of operating pulp mills; they're looking for a partner who would operate a mill. There is an opportunity there — low-cost power and wood available — but I'm not going to make the investment. We're going to look for a venture partner. We're going to assist, should one come forward, the two to come together. I'm confident that we'll find a solution to that problem.

The member asked a number of questions about our regional development officer, and he has asked them a number of times. How was he hired? What are his qualifications? What is his salary? We'll start with where he started. He was hired by the previous minister as an OIC, as were all eight, I believe, of the original regional development officers. He's working on contract now with the ministry. The details of the contract are administered by my deputy. His salary is a contract salary; he makes $53,000 a year. That includes all of his benefits. You asked earlier about his automobile. He provides his own. The government pays him the standard 26 cents-a-kilometre allowance.

Let's see, what other interests were there? He wanted to know why this individual "sneaks around doing constituency business, business that the member should be doing."

[ Page 8072 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Sneaks around?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Yes, it's interesting. I quite honestly don't know who the member thinks he's sneaking around. There is an interesting situation in the Omineca riding, one that gives us a fair amount of difficulty. First of all, the member doesn't live there, so he's not there to sneak around. He lives in Victoria. So somebody else is sneaking around him. There are two constituencies out of 69 in the province of British Columbia that do not maintain constituency offices in the riding. Interestingly, one of those two is Omineca. More interestingly, both of them are in Nechako. This provides a bit of a dilemma for people who represent the government and try to deal with local issues. It provides a bit of a concern to me.

The member might know that every trip I make into Nechako and Omineca I'm approached by people with particular questions. I say to them: "Those are not within the mandate of the Minister of Regional Development. They should be dealt with by your MLA." Those people include people that the member has indicated in the House are his friends and supporters, and the most common response is that they turn their hands palms up, shrug their shoulders, look at you and grin. Mr. Member, you can take from that whatever you want. I draw my conclusions from their actions. But I want to tell you that the lack of presence in those constituencies complicates the business of providing regional development in the context in which we think of it in the rest of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just prior to proceeding, the tradition of this House has been to debate all the responsibilities of the minister in the first vote. I'm disappointed that this tradition is not being adhered to at the present time, because I think it's commonly known that the traditions of this House are as important as the rules. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of all the members.

MR. KEMPF: I surely wish you had done that before the minister got up, Mr. Chairman, because the minister is the one who brought up the question of a constituency office. He's absolutely incorrect and he knew when he stood up that he was incorrect. He knows, as a northerner who serves a riding that is very large — and mine is larger than his is; about 30,000 square miles — that it's better to serve that constituency from a mobile office, which I do, and which, if he ever flew in to the Vanderhoof airport, he would see parked there, a situation which has existed since 1977, and which the people...

MR. PETERSON: Is it staffed?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, it's staffed every time I get into it.

...of Omineca relate to. I don't know who he has been talking to in Omineca that's been turning up their hands. It certainly hasn't been the ones that have put me higher and higher in the polls in four consecutive elections. We will see about the fifth.

I would invite the Minister Responsible for Nechako and Northeast to come run against me and we will really see about participatory democracy. There is no dilemma on the part of my constituents to get hold of me, or to know where I am or to know who represents them.

MR. PETERSON: As long as they don't mind phoning long distance.

MR. KEMPF: It's long distance from one side of my riding to another, as the member would know if he would come up there.

MR. MILLER: These urban people in Vancouver don't understand.

MR. KEMPF: They have no idea. I advertise my home number so that they can call in the middle of the night, which they do. I turn up here at 7 o'clock in the morning, because my people in Omineca get up before the city slickers, and that's when they want to talk to their member. We can talk about that for a long time, but let's get back to these identified opportunities that the Minister of State for Nechako and Northeast talked about.

What opportunities have been identified? I want to know. He didn't address the conflict-of-interest question. Does he not think that Mr. Carter is in a conflict-of-interest position? I do. In fact, I think this government has a whole lot of people who are in that position.

Has the minister, in giving a lot more thought to participatory democracy, now decided that perhaps it would be incumbent upon him to put on all these committees the duly and democratically elected representative for that area?

If you want to get into where the members of this chamber live, that's another whole subject, and we can certainly get into that at some future time if you wish. To throw those kinds of remarks across this floor shows exactly where those people are coming from, and that's why I'm not sitting with them any longer. I'd had it up to the neck with that kind of garbage. We're here to represent our people who democratically elect us.

You can blame your staff all you like for not telling a member of a committee that a meeting was going to be held, and I've got the letter of reprimand. I think that's pathetic. The least you could do is take the responsibility onto yourself, because it is your responsibility.

Participatory democracy, indeed. How many miles does this vehicle travel in a month to do endruns around the MLA? I want to know how many kilometres a month you are paying the economic development liaison officer for in your state of Nechako. What else is done out of that office besides providing a haven for a political hack and paying him $53,000 a year, $20,000 more a year than an MLA is paid? It's great to be friends of government.

[ Page 8073 ]

I don't represent my area, indeed! We'll see, Mr. Chairman, all too soon for that group over there. Is the minister going to answer my questions, or isn't he?

Who does he believe should own the land in British Columbia: multinational offshore corporations or the Indian people? Does he believe that the Indian people are British Columbians the same as the rest of us? The minister laughs. He thinks these are funny questions. He told me the other day — it wasn't him; it was another superminister of state — that they're silly questions. They may be silly questions, but they're non-answers, Mr. Chairman.

We hear a lot of questions in this chamber, but we get very few answers. The minister can make personal attacks if he likes. He can do that all he likes; I have a very thick skin. I've been here almost 14 years, and that doesn't bother me at all. But when he casts aspersions on my constituents, that does bother me. That bothers me a whole lot. That's the very reason I've been here almost 14 years: solely for my constituents. Perhaps when he has been here that long, he will have learned something.

Vote 60 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTER OF STATE FOR
CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 55: minister's office, $286,884.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a delight to rise to my feet for this third set of estimates for me in this portfolio and the second set of estimates as minister of state for the Cariboo development region. I see that my official critic is not here, but I see there's lots of other talent in the committee this afternoon. I'm sure there will be some response, although if my memory of the standing orders serves me correctly, I will probably be making my constructive speech — my 30-minute opening statement — and then probably we can adjourn. I think the timing ought to be just right there.

[12:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He agrees too. Tea time is 2:15.

In speaking to the spending estimates of the ministry, I'd like to do both categories. I'd like to discuss the budget of the Ministry of Environment for about half of my opening comments, and then I'll discuss the Cariboo economic development region, for the member's benefit.

MR. MILLER: Will it be a short speech?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I have a variety of items to cover.

The members of the committee will recall, Mr. Chairman, that during the budget speech we had a lot of good things to say from the point of view of Environment. Our budget has been increased substantially — 30 percent — and really, that's what is critically needed at this time.

just to run through some of the categories here, administration support services went from $12 million to $19, a $7 million increase. Recreational fisheries management is up a million dollars; and, of course, we've also had the additional account of the $2 million hatchery that's going to be built at Duncan, and we can get into that. That's a very good sign for our ability to manage and recognize the remarkable resource that recreational fisheries is for the province.

Waste management is one of our major concerns. It's a concern of every member of this House and, I think, of all of the population of British Columbia. Quite legitimately, it has seen a $16 million budget increase, from $21 million to $37 million.

Water management is up $2 million, wildlife management is up a million dollars, and enforcement and recreational safety.... This embodies two programs, essentially: adding more conservation officers to the field — again, that's another feature of proper waste management control; and to a lesser degree, the river-rafting legislation and the management of the statutes that we brought in in 1988.

The net result is that for total general fund expenditures, we have gone from $90 million for fiscal 1988-89 to $121 million for fiscal 1989-90. That's a remarkable increase, and I think it does reflect this government's recognition that the management services of the Ministry of Environment are indeed a priority. One can always say that you're just paying lip-service to a concern or to a public image, but in this case we demonstrate in real dollars and in real political philosophy that we have a serious and sound commitment to better managing the environment.

One of the more important features this year for me — something that has been discussed for the last two years — was the Task Force on the Environment and the Economy. This has been a feature of the environmental movement since 1986, when the Brundtland commission came out with its report, Our Common Future. The Brundtland commission was named after Madam Gro Harlem Brundtland, Prime Minister of Norway, who accepted the United Nations commission to look at some of the devastation occurring on our planet — and justifiably so. That committee looked at some very serious issues that our planet is facing and arrived at the report, Our Common Future. Of course, it goes without saying that the Brazil situation — the depletion of the rain forest there — the increase of the Sahara Desert and many other world environmental issues brought that difficult focus to the United Nations, and it was from those very serious concerns that Madam Brundtland began her work.

The results of her work, as I indicated earlier, was the publication of Our Common Future. It's quite brilliant in its design. It's quite simplistic in its design in many respects, because it does indicate that there is a direct linkage between the economy of a country

[ Page 8074 ]

and the environment: unless you sustain the environment, you will not sustain the economy.

I say that it's fundamentally simple, not in a glib way, because if we study history — even going back to the Bible — we recognize that we have read such things in those writings and in many other forms since well before the time of Christ. In the Old Testament and many other ancient writings you'll see references to sustainability: how you must leave part of your land fallow for recovery and how you must nurture the land that you are using for its continued productivity.

What Madam Brundtland did was to bring a modem-day focus to a principle that's been known to civilization since it began: that we have to give considerable care to our planet, that we have to nurture it, that we have to manage it properly; otherwise it will leave us, and its ability to sustain us will be gone.

It's from that work that most of the western countries have adopted the principle proposed by Madam Brundtland, and Canada — the ten provinces and the two territories — was no exception. As a matter of fact, the federal government established a Prime Minister's task force in 1986 and made an excellent report back to the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers at their annual September meeting in 1987, which I attended. That meeting was held in Quebec. All of the 13 ministers on that Canadian council soundly endorsed the National Task Force on Environment and Economy and agreed that we would take it back to our various cabinets and support it and offer our own task force and a mechanism for establishing that task force for our various jurisdictions.

That has been done, of course, in all provinces, with the exception of Alberta. They are moving rapidly towards that. Following the cameras on the first ministers' conference for the last couple of days, it was indicated to me this morning that Premier Don Getty of Alberta has put in place an Alberta task force on the environment and the economy, which will round out the Canadian picture in terms of addressing this situation.

As I said, I endorsed it as a minister in British Columbia in September 1987 and later that year the Premier — at a first ministers' conference, I believe, in November of 1987 — also endorsed it. At that point we put in place a mechanism of how British Columbia would deal with the environment and the economy, what would be the British Columbia reaction to that initiative and what we would put in place. We struck terms of reference, we struck senior staff from my ministry and also from the Ministry of Regional Development to prepare a submission for us. That submission went to cabinet.

In late 1988 we were able to present to cabinet and have cabinet approve a two-part proposal. One would put in place a task force to identify for the benefit of cabinet what features a British Columbia round table would have, what strategy it would put in place, and in general give us a design of what would be best for economic development and a sustainable environment in the province of British Columbia.

That task force was chaired by Dr. David Strangway, the president of UBC. He was an excellent choice, in my view, and one that was considered so throughout the province by all people who know Dr. Strangway. It's interesting to note, following the last estimates, that a member raised concerns about Alcan. Dr. Strangway had been seconded by the federal government to resolve the Alcan issue earlier that year. He did so in his own brilliant fashion and resolved it quite well, keeping the province, Alcan and the federal government out of court on the issue. It was for that reason that I recommended to cabinet that Dr. Strangway be the chairman of our task force to suggest the implementation of a British Columbia round table, and I make no apologies. As a matter of fact, I'm pleased that David Strangway was able to assist in that way, because the contribution he made was quite remarkable. He really has a brilliant mind when it comes to conflict resolution, when it comes to arriving at consensus from various different opinions. He just has a remarkable ability to ensure that any committee he sits on or chairs does end up with a focus, a direction and a position.

Joining Dr. Strangway were other eminent British Columbians. We wanted to ensure that we had participation from as many different sectors as we could, and we sort of followed the model that the Canadian task force had used, which had been recommended in Our Common Future. We wanted to ensure that all sectors were represented and were represented well. So in that instance we ensured that we had the native community represented, we had the environmental community represented, we had labour represented and we had industry represented.

I'll just briefly run through the people we selected to fill those various categories. For the native representation we were fortunate to have Matt Vickers, who works for the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en commission. He's from Terrace, a native fellow, one of the famous Vickers family. He agreed to sit on the committee for us, and his input was exceptional, to say the least. He brings a very well-balanced opinion and outlook to this type of decision-making body.

From the labour community we were fortunate to have Roger Stanyer sit on the committee. Roger is with the IWA in Duncan. He's a sound environmentalist and has served the province well on other provincial committees, notably the Wilderness Advisory Committee that my colleague the current Deputy Speaker put in place when he was Minister of Environment. So we were fortunate to have Roger with us, who represented on the one hand a legitimate concern from labour that is involved in the resource-extraction industry, and on the other hand, the views of Vancouver Island, where you have constituents who are genuinely concerned with good management of the resource but also genuinely concerned with good management of their environment. In that sense, I was pleased to see Roger Stanyer accept that position with the task force.

[ Page 8075 ]

Representing industry became a bit more difficult because there are two major industries that environmentalists are concerned about in the province: the forest industry, the largest one, and B.C.'s second largest, the mining industry. We didn't know what we wanted to do. We didn't want to have a large committee. We didn't want to have competing interests. We wanted to have industry represented, yet we did not want to see a preponderance of industry representatives. So we struck a balance, if I can use that term, which was the title of the Canadian task force report, "Striking the Balance." To represent industry we chose Wendy McDonald, who is the president of B.C. Bearing Engineers. Wendy is also vice-president of the Vancouver Board of Trade, a remarkable businesswoman in her own right and, of course, being in the bearing business, would represent all industries and would certainly take their focus, opinion and concerns to this task force. Wendy served with distinction on that committee, offering the view of industry in general in British Columbia, because there isn't an industry that turns a wheel that doesn't use a bearing.

Representing the environmental side, I was pleased that Dr. Bert Brink, professor emeritus, was willing to sit on the committee. Bert is an outstanding fellow, a fine friend. He is a class naturalist and has been involved in naturalist work for years. As a matter of fact, even at his age.... He is getting on now. He wrote me a very nice note the other day.

MR. PERRY: He's not; he's still young.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's still young; you're right. Bert is a veteran of World War II.

MR. PERRY: He can hike better than you or I can.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know. That's what he wrote me in the note. He is off hiking somewhere in the Cariboo. I wish I had the note with me, because it is a nice note thanking me for something else. I will retract "old." I will say that he is a seasoned veteran of environmental works and of the environmental movement and brings, as I am sure the member for Vancouver-Point Grey will admit, not only a real passion for the environment but also serious scholarship to the table and to the discussions. He does have a PhD; I believe agriculture was his discipline. He is a brilliant man in his own right, and I was so pleased to have him sit.

[12:45]

That was the extent of the committee. They reported a couple of weeks ago, and the report has now gone public. I will just run through the features of its recommendations and then get on to other things. It recommends that there be a provincial round table and that it be an advisory body to cabinet. It's my own thought that this round table, being an advisory committee to cabinet, must have primacy. It's my view — and, I'm sure, the view of all of us who are sincerely concerned about the environment — that unless this advisory body, this round table, does have primacy, environmental and economic issues will not be served. So I want to underscore that the primacy aspect must be there.

The Strangway report also recommends the establishment of a regional network. I think that's critical. Unless we have good input from the regions we are not going to be able to manage the economy and the environment well. I'm fully prepared, as a minister, to accept that there may be different opinions from different regions on managing our resources, and I don't have any problem with that. As a matter of fact, just to tread briefly into my role as a minister of state, I think it's quite clear that in this province, with its diversity of geography, appearance, industry and people's wishes, we can have regional policies. In my view we can have regional diversity; we can have policy which varies from one region to the other. In my view, the committee's recommendation that we have a regional networking system is critical to the success of the round table on sustainable economic and environmental development.

The other report — which I was pleased to see you were part of, Mr. Chairman — was a task force put in place to discuss and identify the issues concerned with solid waste management in our province. That report was commissioned by me in the fall of 1988. We had done some preliminary investigation in the Ministry of Environment, and recognizing that we had a serious concern.... I guess the best way to underscore it is to state that solid waste management in the province was at a critical stage. We are running out of landfills. I think the figure was that 60 percent of our landfills would be gone within ten years, so we quickly had to begin looking at alternative methods of managing the solid waste problem in British Columbia. I have to underscore the word "problem," because it really is.

The MLA for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), my parliamentary secretary, took on that task. I think it was an exceptional choice, in that the member has been the mayor of a small community. Solid waste management, of course, is very much a municipal problem. That's where it begins. That's where a lot of the management strategies have to be put in place. The member, along with staff from the Ministry of Environment, toured the province in the fall of 1988 and came together with a report of 77 recommendations, all of which are superb and go a long way to presenting a good consensus opinion about how solid wastes should be managed within the province.

I think the thing we have to also point out in terms of this report is the fact that they heard a variety of opinions. As you go throughout a province as diverse and different as British Columbia, you have to recognize that the mayor or council of one community is going to have a different strategy for managing solid wastes and dealing with the issues, in terms of taxation, landfill or whatever the alternative methods might be, than people in the lower mainland.

In that sense, the report was quite brilliant, in that it did recommend a variety of options. It underscored, of course, recycling, reuse and recovery as the methods; I don't think there are any secrets there.

[ Page 8076 ]

We all know, if we read anything about solid waste management, that landfill is not the answer — not by any means. As a matter of fact, it's a negative situation now in terms of dealing with that problem. The recycling component and recovery and reuse of solid waste were essential ingredients in the report offered by my colleague.

The report and its implications are going to take some time to come into place. Some of them have financial commitments attached to them, and Treasury Board is going to have to address some of the recommendations made. Others have to be addressed by the UBCM, because I don't think it should be that a Minister of Environment all of a sudden waves a wand and waste management policy is put in place in every municipality. I think we have to have a long and serious discussion with the various mayors and councils, city engineers and people who are concerned about waste management in their own area That discussion has to take place.

I'm not saying this as an indication that I have any reason to stall the recommendations offered in the solid waste management report. I think it's important that we recognize that there are many other opinions out there held by municipal governments, regional districts and industries such as the beer bottle industry, the soft drink dispensers, the grocery store industry and the food industry. All of those people are an integral part of solid waste management — either the solution or the problem. We have to seek consensus from them. When we do that, we can then develop and put in place, slowly but surely — and, I think, in the best possible fashion — a good solid waste management program for the province. That said, I'll leave the report alone. Perhaps we can deal with it later in my estimates.

A couple of very serious problems came to be: number one in everyone's mind is the dioxin issue, and that is serious. It has had serious implications for the fishery in Howe Sound. It has had serious implications for many aspects of industry, particularly the pulp and paper industry in the province of British Columbia, and it's one we have to deal with.

Just to give the committee a bit of background there, in 1987 the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States began to do some serious work on waters that were impacted by discharge from chlorine-process pulp mills, realizing that there was a strong possibility of dioxins — AOXs is the generic term — being in the waters and in the discharge of mills that used chlorine in their pulp-bleaching process. Environment Canada took up that work and began looking at ground fish, particularly the crabs in the Prince Rupert area and also in the Howe Sound area.

The government of British Columbia did some dioxin testing with respect to sap stain-contaminated wood, in terms of air emissions. We did that in Prince George, as a matter of fact, in a recovery boiler test. We subjected contaminated wood to recovery boiler temperatures of 1,200 degrees Celsius for a certain length of time. We tested the emissions and found out that they could be destroyed in that time at that temperature.

The news was not so good, though, in terms of the bottom contamination in Howe Sound and at Prince Rupert. In September of 1988, Environment Canada told us that they had found traceable levels in the non-edible tissues — the gut — of crab, and in December, 1988, they found traceable levels beyond their standard, which is 20 parts per trillion in the edible tissues of the crab. On the basis of that, they closed part of Howe Sound and part of the Prince Rupert area to the crab fishery, and of course, as we all know, they have insisted upon a larger closure just lately.

It was our view as a cabinet that we had to act very quickly on this. Coincident with this, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association had advised its membership of the EPA work. It had been doing some work of its own. It had begun to develop methodology for testing and for correction of the problem. That knowledge was known to me and to the pulp and paper industry throughout Canada, and the work had already begun.

In December, I asked the pulp and paper industry if they would supply me with the remedies they saw. I wanted that information by January 30. I wanted them to provide me with their plans. I also wanted them to provide me with an agenda that they would put in place for testing. We would review what we would have to do. On May 12, I brought in orders that indicated to the pulping industry what we would accept in terms of discharge of AOX, and they have agreed to that.

As I've said in times past in the Legislative Assembly, the costs of this remedial work will probably be $700 million to $800 million by the time pulp mills have met all their obligations and have put the appropriate pollution control measures in place. They are, as some of you will know, going from straight chlorine bleaching to a dioxide of chlorine — C102 — in many cases using hydrogen peroxide for delignification, 80 percent H²0 to delignification, different types of defoaming agents, more wash water and a variety of methodologies as well as testing for PCPs in any wood chips they might be using.

All those remedies are being put in place now. It's my understanding that the pulp and paper industry can reach all of my conditions and the agenda that I have put in place by the time those dates come around. There is one threshold in 1991 that has to be met, and another in 1994 that must be met. With just one exception — and I'm talking to that company now — all the companies have indicated they can meet those objectives and those regulations. I'm quite convinced they can. They seem to be, if anything, falling over their feet to get out the press releases indicating how much money they are going to be spending. Just in Prince George — in my riding — Canadian Forest Products announced two weeks ago they would be spending $150 million on their two chlorine mills to meet my objectives, and could do it quite easily within the time-frame I've put in place.

[ Page 8077 ]

I guess from bad news, you make good news. As Harry Truman once said: "If you're given lemons, make lemonade." No one likes to see a crab fishery close — least of all me, I can assure you. It's really the testing capacity, the ability to test in parts per trillion, that has identified this problem for us. The problem has always been there, but the capacity to test for those levels has just been known to us in the last couple of years. I guess it's good that science has given us that message and that methodology, and it's good to know that we can now begin to address the problems that are there with the particular industry we have in British Columbia.

I just have a couple more minutes to go, Mr. Chairman, in my.... Oh, gee, the green light's on, so I'd like to briefly talk about the Cariboo development region.

I and my colleague the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) are two of the first ministers appointed to this ministry-of-state operation, so we have some experience at it. I've been fortunate, doing it since early 1988, and I've found it's been a very productive exercise. I include a board of directors which includes all the mayors from the communities that are within the Cariboo development region, as well as the two chairmen of the regional districts. As I said, I've found it most productive.

It's interesting that although we were put in place to be, I think, and the Premier's first thoughts were to see us as, ministers of economic development, what I find most apparent is the wish of the communities that I represent as minister of state for a better lifestyle and for better social amenities. If you look at what we've done, it includes the university society work, a health study that's currently being done by Coopers and Lybrand, air-quality work at Williams Lake, and a tourism development, which, I guess, you could consider industrial. In most cases there's a sincere desire not for more economic development — because I really think we've got enough sawmills and we've got enough pulp mills — but for a better quality of life. If I can fulfil that role as a minister of state, then I've done what the people have asked me to do.

It is interesting, because I think so many people in the lower mainland think that the north needs more jobs, the north needs more this. Prince George has the highest per capita salary in the province. We have reasonably low unemployment for a seasonal-industry community. We do have lots of jobs, and if you scratch the average Prince Georgian or the average person from Prince Rupert or Williams Lake, they want better education, better hospitals, better health — better things in areas like that.

I see the time's up, so I'd like to....

[1:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the red light's on. I was just really getting going. It's 1 o'clock. I'm going to make the appropriate resolutions or motions.

Interjection.

HON. MR STRACHAN: I know. I'll have lots more to say in the ensuing weeks and months, because I've got a funny feeling these are going to be good estimates.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report remarkable resolution and progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday next.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I now wish everyone a very pleasant Canada Day weekend. We'll see you all on Tuesday. I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.