Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1992

[ Page 919 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting in the precincts today is a group of students, a grade 6 class of Mr. George Connell from my riding of New Westminster. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming them to the House for their tour of the buildings.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I have the distinct honour of welcoming to the precincts once again one of the longstanding members of this Legislature, who has been serving British Columbia as the agent general in London. I had the pleasure of being hosted by him and Helen when I was in London and Europe a few months ago. I would like this House to give a very warm welcome to our agent general, Mr. Garde Gardom.

R. Chisholm: I rise today to introduce to the House Tony Lodder, Judy Thompson and Ben Brandsema. These people are members of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture and are visiting the House today. Would you make them most welcome.

W. Hurd: It's my pleasure today to introduce a group of 45 grade 9 and 10 students and their chaperones from Earl Marriott Secondary School in my riding. Would you also welcome their teacher Muriel Haack to the House today.

H. De Jong: In addition to the three people representing the B.C. Federation of Agriculture who have already been mentioned by the member for Chilliwack, I would just like to recognize all members who are here today representing the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and give them a hearty welcome.

J. Beattie: I would like to welcome to the precincts today a hard-working farmer from Summerland, who is a member of the BCFA. He is here with the BCFA lobbying all members of government. His name is Frank Lauer, and I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

K. Jones: Visiting with us today is a delegation from Surrey. These gentlemen represent the Save the B.C. Transportation Museum Committee in Cloverdale and bring greetings to Victoria on behalf of the Cloverdale Board of Trade. Would the House please make welcome Mr. Ronald Sloan, Mr. Blaine McEwen, Mr. Larry Coonce, Mr. Fred Davies and Mr. John Lewis.

Introduction of Bills

WATER AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Water Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks has begun a complete renewal of the legislation necessary to provide responsible, progressive and effective environmental management. Review of water management legislation is an important part of this legislative renewal program.

Today I'm introducing the Water Amendment Act, 1992, which is very much in the spirit of this review, but which is considered urgent at this time and cannot await the outcome of that work.

The Water Amendment Act improves the effectiveness and enforceability of current stream management activities, delegates decision-making authority to the most appropriate individuals in the ministry's regional offices, standardizes the appeal process relating to the cancellation of licences and makes the penalties associated with offences consistent with other environmental legislation. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.

Bill 24 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.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL FEES

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier, and it has to do with a settlement in the Stewart-Firestone case. Hon. Speaker, I'm mindful of the point of order that was raised yesterday....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, before you proceed, I should advise the House that the matter pertaining to this issue is under advisement and being studied by the Speaker. With respect to her not having brought the decision down on this matter, I would appreciate it if you would raise another question.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I am mindful of the fact that the point of order raised yesterday was with respect to the question being put to a member prior to the member forming government. My question today quite clearly relates to a settlement that took place after November 5, and it is clearly in the purview of the time that the Premier was Premier of the province and was responsible for the actions. So it is not on the question raised yesterday.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. That may well be the case; however, in light of the fact that the matter is being studied in its totality, I don't feel that it would be appropriate for us to raise the matter until a ruling with respect to the matter has been brought in by the Speaker.

D. Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the point of order that you referred to, which was raised yesterday by the hon. Attorney General, this point of order -- which has not been ruled on yet by the Speaker -- clearly dealt with a question of whether or not a question could be asked in question 

[ Page 920 ]

period that dealt with a matter relating to a previous parliament. The hon. Attorney General also raised the matter of whether or not a question could be asked that came under the ministerial competence of a minister. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition today is asking a question not to the minister involved, but to the Premier as leader of the government, and it's clearly on a matter relating to an event that took place subsequent to the government coming into power. I would argue that the question is clearly in order, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your point of view, hon. member. Nonetheless, I believe it is appropriate for the Speaker to respect the propriety of the privilege of the Speaker in this matter, and she is, hopefully, going to bring a decision down as soon as possible. At that time we can determine whether or not the matter can be addressed in question period.

[2:15]

J. Weisgerber: So that there's no confusion on this side of the House, is the Speaker in fact saying that any question related to the expenditure of public money by the government related to the entire question of the suit by the Minister of Labour involving Mr. Firestone, former Attorney General Bud Smith and all related issues is, until such time as the Speaker rules, not open to discussion in this Legislature?

Deputy Speaker: Obviously this is a matter that is not going to be dismissed without the due care and attention by all members of the Legislature, and I'm not suggesting that it be delayed unduly. However, it's quite clear that we would be wise in ensuring that the matters we are addressing are in order. This is what the Speaker is studying and will be bringing in a ruling with respect to what is in order and what is out of order.

This is all I'm suggesting, so I would ask that we address other questions until such time as that ruling comes in. I understand it will be tomorrow. Although I haven't been informed of that, I anticipate it will be quite soon.

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour, and it has to do with the resolution of the crisis that we have in B.C. health care. A letter from Vancouver General Hospital today to the Minister of Health, April 23, suggested this dispute will obviously not be solved at the bargaining table, and he urges your government take immediate action to end the dispute. Would the Minister of Labour tell us: when can the people of British Columbia expect action from this government to resolve this crisis?

Hon. M. Sihota: I am pleased to report to this House that as we speak, a series of meetings are being held -- were held this morning and will continue this afternoon -- that involve the parties, both the HEU and the HLRA and others, with a view to bringing this matter to a resolution forthwith.

Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. leader of the official opposition, I would advise the House that due to the points of order, the question period will be extended by four minutes.

G. Wilson: Supplementary to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister tell us, with respect to these meetings, what is the timetable, what is the timeline that the government has with respect to a resolution? This current conflict has gone on now for a week longer than the 1989 strike. We have a recommendation from an independent third party with respect to binding arbitration. How much longer does the minister need to meet? Can he give us a time in which he is going to make a recommendation so that the weighty length of waiting-lists can be addressed immediately, and people can again expect to have health care delivered in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: So that British Columbians aren't misled, health care is certainly being provided now. Secondly, in answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I'm expecting a report at the end of the day from Vancouver.

G. Wilson: Do I take it, given that the report will be coming at the end of the day, that the minister will either take action with respect to binding arbitration or through some other method have the labour action in the hospitals dealt with by day's end? Is it now appropriate for the minister to tell us at what time this government feels enough is enough, and that there is time to end this conflict?

Hon. M. Sihota: If I had my druthers, the matter would come to an end today. I'm expecting a report today, and based on that report there will be some advice with respect to timing. The hon. member makes reference to the Kelleher report. It's important to note that there's no reference in terms of the timing for the implementation of binding arbitration. I think it's fair to say that I will assess the advice that I get today, and I would hope to be in a position to announce the next move on the government's part tomorrow. I don't want to unduly raise expectations in that regard, but I'm telling you quite frankly that that's the objective that I'm working under. And the advice that I get will, at the end of the day determine the time that we set for the next intervention.

SCHOOL FUNDING

L. Hanson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Not long ago the minister announced a $75 million capital program for the Surrey School District. In that announcement there were a number of figures presented: $16 million for the Guildford addition, $22 million for the Scottsdale addition and so on. To give the minister the question: in September the request for those capital programs were, in the case of Guildford's secondary addition, $11 million; the approval amount was $16 million. In the case of Scottsdale, the request in September was $18 million; it was approved at $22 

[ Page 921 ]

million. In the case of Fleetwood, it was requested in September at $13 million and approved at $20 million. Can the minister give us some explanation for the huge increase?

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I'd be very happy to take the question on notice and provide the member with detailed information as soon as possible.

HOSPITAL LABOUR DISPUTE

L. Reid: My first question is to the Minister of Labour. In the recent election campaign your party promised to provide "hospitals and health care...that we can count on." My question to the minister is: is the current situation his idea of fulfilling that promise, or was the line simple election rhetoric?

Hon. M. Sihota: It was clearly not rhetoric, as evidenced by the changes to the health care budget, the increases that this government has provided for health care and the shift away from institutionalized care towards community care in the province. So we're fulfilling that commitment, and that's evidenced by the decisions taken in the budget. There's no intention there at all.

L. Reid: My supplemental is to the Minister of Health. The same electronic campaign document commits that this government will eliminate waiting-lists and make sure that all quality health care is available to all who need it. Does the minister feel that she can support binding arbitration today, or can she support back-to-work legislation? Will this crisis in British Columbia health care be resolved?

Hon. E. Cull: You're asking a question that should be directed to the Minister of Labour if you're talking about binding arbitration or other ways of resolving the dispute.

L. Reid: A supplementary. I was in fact asking your opinion. I'm not sure that he carries your opinion, but it's an interesting comment.

My final supplemental is again to the Minister of Health. So many surgeries have been cancelled and so many people's lives have been and continue to be compromised due to the current situation. Will she tell the people of B.C. how much longer she's willing to let their lives and health be compromised?

Hon. E. Cull: I share the member's concern about the effect that the dispute is having on patient care in this province, and I am becoming very concerned about the number of people who are not able to get into the hospitals to have needed surgery done and about the people who are going onto the waiting-lists. For that reason I have been working with the Minister of Labour to do whatever can be done to bring about a speedy resolution to this dispute.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last week the Minister of Labour said his patience and the patience of his government was wearing thin. He told us to wait for the Kelleher report on Tuesday. Well, Tuesday has come and gone. How much longer do the people of British Columbia have to wait? What's the deadline?

Hon. M. Sihota: I would refer the hon. member to the answer that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Farrell-Collins: The answers that we've been receiving from whichever minister, or the Premier, simply haven't been adequate for the people of B.C. Over 3,000 people in the last month had to have their surgery postponed or cancelled. It will take up to six months to work through that backlog. Enough is enough. When will the minister finally take a decisive stand and start governing for the benefit of all British Columbians?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I've said before, this government is always interested in governing to the benefit of all British Columbians. In our policies and programs structures are designed with that in mind, and they will continue to be.

G. Farrell-Collins: A supplementary, hon. Speaker. Once again we're all over the place on this. We're not getting any hard answers.

The minister told us yesterday that we would have to wait until Friday before there was any movement on this issue, but that he was reaching the end of his rope. My question is: how long is the minister's rope, and when will the minister stop pussyfooting around and show some decisive leadership? It's time he put a knot in the end of his rope.

Hon. M. Sihota: Obviously the hon. member was not listening to the reply to the first question.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if you'd settle down for a moment and listen carefully this time.

The fact of the matter is that we are meeting currently with the parties involved. The hon. member knows as well as I do that this is a delicate and difficult dispute. We are meeting with the parties today. We are expecting a report back today. Once we have that report back, we will make the next appropriate announcement. I'm hoping to be in a position to do that tomorrow.

GOLF COURSES
ON AGRICULTURAL LAND

H. De Jong: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It deals with the removal of a proposal for a golf course from the moratorium. A number of conditions have been the subject of this removal. I would just like to read one of the removal portions.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, do you have a question?

[ Page 922 ]

H. De Jong: Yes.

Deputy Speaker: You should not be bringing information, hon. member.

H. De Jong: My question is whether the minister approves that the removal from the moratorium is specific and applies to the person, firm or corporation that made the proposal but will not apply if the lands or assets involved in the proposal are sold, transferred or leased, or if there is a change in control of the firm or corporation which made the proposal. Is the minister in agreement with that?

Hon. B. Barlee: It was a rather convoluted question on a very serious matter. As the member well knows, we are trying to safeguard approximately 5 percent of the agricultural land of British Columbia -- and that's all, one out of 20 acres. We think that the decision we arrived at in cabinet was reasonable. Sixty out of 102 golf courses were cancelled. That was something we inherited from the previous government which I think was very ill-advised. Order-in-council 1141, I believe, was giving the thin edge of the wedge to speculators, not developers. The decision we made in cabinet, which was released to these various people who were concerned, was a just decision and was well thought out.

H. De Jong: Does the minister mean that he supports the establishment of a golf course only on the basis of ownership instead of proposed land use?

Hon. B. Barlee: Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold as to ask the member to rephrase that question; it was rather difficult to understand.

H. De Jong: If the minister supports what we read in this letter that was sent to an applicant.... In my opinion, it states that he supports the establishment of a golf course only on the basis of ownership rather than on the proposed land use. Is the minister in agreement with that?

Hon. B. Barlee: I hope that I'm not too obtuse, but I have great difficulty understanding that. First of all, I don't know what letter the member has in his hand. I have not perused that letter. I would be quite willing to answer that if I have a chance to peruse the letter first.

[2:30]

COMMISSION ON RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT

J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The minister has appointed a commission of resources to study sensitive issues in the province. If an area is under study, is he allowing any resource extraction prior to the report of the commission?

Hon. J. Cashore: I assume that the hon. member is referring to the Commission on Resources and Environment. Is that the commission that the hon. member is referring to?

I'm glad we've had a question on this issue, because it's an initiative of this government that we are extremely proud of. It's going to enable British Columbians to come together to the table and work on issues together.

With regard to the reporting procedure, as I understand the question, the reports that come forward from the commission will be made public. The decision-makers, then, will have to base their decisions on the information that comes forward and which the public will be fully aware of.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call Committee of Supply, both committees.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES

On vote 56: minister's office, $350,718 (continued).

V. Anderson: Let me ask a very current question, because there's been some misunderstandings among the people in the province. This has to do with their not receiving their cheques on this current pay-out on the 22nd. The main concern seems to be on two accounts: (1) that they were not notified of the change; and (2) that there were not three working days indicated between the 29th and the 30th. This has caused a great deal of difficulty to many people, a number of them being unable to pay their month-end rents as well as going without food for the period of time. I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us about the current situation.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member should know, first of all, that this is a historic problem. This is not a problem that government has not had to deal with in the past. This is the first time that this government has had to deal with this problem. Let me tell you what we are doing. There has been notification in each of the offices about the scheduled dates for cheques. What we are doing for future cheque runs is notifying each person individually about the predicted scheduled cheque dates.

In addition to that, we are currently reviewing the issue of five weeks between cheques. That happens three to four times in a year, depending on the year. We're currently looking at the impact those extended periods have on clients. The number of options before us indicate that most options will cost government a considerable amount of money. We are exploring those and will have a conclusion to that shortly.

L. Reid: I liked what you had to say yesterday in terms of supporting families and providing opportunities. My questions will revolve around the areas of 

[ Page 923 ]

special-needs children in the province. Perhaps you could start by talking a bit about the services available on special-needs day care.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Because there are a number of areas around day care specifically -- there's been a major announcement today, which the member may be aware of, through the Ministry of Women's Equality -- I'm in the process of trying to sort out what future announcements we have in our ministry with regard to day care. There are still a couple of programs housed in this ministry. One of them, as you have identified, is the special-needs program -- as well as the subsidy program, which is an extensive program. There will be some future announcements with regard to those programs in the next couple of days, so I won't elaborate on government policy with regard to that.

The special-needs program is highly respected in the province. The people who have been working on this program for a number of years have earned a considerable reputation for the work they have done. I think that needs to be recognized.

The budget this year for special-needs has increased, and the increase is $9.4 million. That's $23.6 million for the previous year to $33.17 million this year.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments in terms of what is being parcelled out under the Ministry of Women's Equality, and what services are going to be staying with your ministry. Specifically, I think you appreciate the stresses that are placed on families seeking day care. Those stresses are only compounded by having a special-needs child in their family unit. Beyond the general comment, I would really appreciate knowing the number of spaces available in the province, because I believe this issue is one of accessibility: how many dollars have been allotted; and how that breaks down region by region in this province.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I just shared the full amount that has been allotted for this program. It has been increased and is now $33.17 million for special-needs day care. We'll see if we have a regional breakdown and the number of spaces that provides, and we'll provide that to you -- if you'd like to continue.

L. Reid: I appreciate the global amount, but I would wait a long time to find out how the dollars break down across the province.

A number of the difficulties that parents are experiencing in this province.... It's reasonable to expect that service if you happen to live adjacent to Children's Hospital, but as you move further away from the medical services that your child requires, it becomes much more difficult to secure day care services. To continue that line of questioning, respite care in this province, for families who choose to have their severely handicapped person at home.... Certainly the program is in place, and you made mention that the folks who work on it are doing an outstanding job. I have no difficulty with that. The issue is accessibility and the process by which you access that service. Right now it's a very long paper trail that must be laid so that British Columbians can care for the person they would like to have at home. Any thoughts on how to simplify that process, how to make it more accessible or to provide more respite care workers in those homes?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to reinforce the commitment I've already made to provide the member with the information about spaces and the distribution of those spaces. Our ministry is the most decentralized ministry in the province; we have services throughout the province. It is a goal of this ministry to provide services and support for families where they live. We have a long way to go. We're still working on that, and this budget will help us improve the situation that currently exists.

We are waiting for that information. We may not have the breakdown, and I may have to provide that for you at another time. But you might like to ask another question. I know there was one there, and it escaped me.

L. Reid: Again in the area of special-needs children, we have a lot of special-needs children, particularly in my riding, who are currently in foster care. There seems to be confusion over funding the special medical needs that they have while they are in foster care. Those families that would choose to adopt those particular children have fewer services at their disposal. That is a significant issue if your ministry is about supporting families. It shouldn't be more difficult to welcome a child into your family through the process of adoption than it is to have services available for that child while in foster care.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I should start by tying a few loose ends around special-needs day care in particular. We currently have a study under way where we will be consulting parents and community groups to have them advise us how we can better enhance the program. The fact is that for a new government, realigning programs and priorities, we're committed to ensuring that the experts -- the parents that are on the front lines, that know their children -- have a voice and can advise us with their expertise to ensure that our programs reflect that expertise.

Secondly, as far as support for special-needs adoption is concerned, I have recently met with advocates. They are providing us with some insight about the difficulty they have with the current program, and likewise, we will be addressing their concerns as soon as possible.

L. Reid: Just a question as a result of a comment you just made in terms of the study on special-needs day care: can you enlighten me as to when that study will be completed and when we can expect a report?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have the date for the conclusion. At this point the ministry has so much work on its plate, we are proceeding as quickly as possible on a number of fronts, and the commitment that the member has from me is that as soon as we can, realizing 

[ Page 924 ]

that everything this ministry does impacts people's lives directly, and understanding the full responsibility and weight of that, we will expedite our work as quickly as is humanly possible.

L. Reid: Through the Chair to the minister, I thank you for that most sincerely.

Foster care in this province. Can you tell us how many children are currently in care, and how many dollars are attached to that? And is there any regional breakdown in that area?

[2:45]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The number of children currently in care in the province is 5,637. There are a number of different categories, age groups and types of care provided within that range. Children are cared for in fostering situations throughout the province, and it's a policy and goal of this ministry that children are taken care of in their communities close to home, so that there is the least disruption possible.

There are a number of types of fostering: foster homes, special-care foster homes and parent-counsellor. The rest are more specialized: either group homes or some type of specialized care for children.

L. Reid: The minister touched on special-care foster homes. I'm very interested in that area. Are you able to expand on that in terms of where they're located, and what the process is for having a child in such a care situation?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Rather than going through each of the numbers, what I did for one of your colleagues was to provide a fact book that we have developed. This ministry is embarking on a process of opening up and sharing a number of these issues with communities. We're continuing along its commitment to develop consensus, and we believe the best way to do that is through information, so that we can have an informed dialogue. We will ensure that you have a copy of the publication about children in care. It lays out in fairly specific detail the types of care, the number of children, and all the rest.

L. Reid: I would welcome the receipt of that -- it would be wonderful.

My next question revolves around the issue of child support. Currently women who receive child support must declare it as income. If indeed this ministry is truly committed to children, to families.... It seems, if that money goes directly to the children, that it is allotted on behalf of the spouse who gives the dollars. Does your ministry have a position on how those dollars cannot be taxed back on behalf of the parent, but will in fact directly benefit the child?

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are a number of issues that you've raised, one around the law that requires the declaration of that income for taxation. That's federal, and that's not within the mandate or jurisdiction of this ministry or this government.

Around the issue of family maintenance, our family maintenance program is very popular and strongly supported by families in this province as well as this ministry. I can tell the member that we are reviewing family maintenance -- our particular provision within the family maintenance program -- and I hope to have an announcement later during this session of the House. We're hoping to be able to improve that program in some way.

As far as the impact of maintenance on GAIN cheques is concerned, we're also doing a review of GAIN legislation and regulations, in the hopes that we can deal with the current act to facilitate a more open and supportive system for parents and families and for all individuals who rely on this ministry for support. I would encourage the member to look forward, as I do, to a very full and broad debate around income support programs and issues of poverty generally in the year to come.

L. Reid: I appreciate your comments on maintenance. I do have a couple of questions that I want to ask about that.

But I need to return to the child tax credit situation, fully appreciating that it is federal jurisdiction. Are you prepared to support the British Columbia women -- mostly -- who have a dilemma when it comes time for them to complete their tax form and they have to list that as income? It's not viable; it does not directly benefit their children. Can we work together on this issue to ensure that we can resolve this?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I should let the member know that we're currently discussing issues of income security with the federal government; in May I will be attending a provincial ministers' meeting with the federal Minister of Health and Welfare. At that time we'll be exploring a number of issues, and have chosen.... While I recognize there is a need to deal with some issues immediately, I am not very well disposed to tinkering with the system, as much as I am to reforming the system. So the member can take from that that we will be acting on issues of immediate need, and will be pushing for considerable reform to the system overall.

L. Reid: A question on the child maintenance enforcement program. There seems to be tremendous frustration out there in terms of how women access that program. There seems to be a telephone number. Certainly the folks who have come to me suggest that it's not possible to visit the office and receive immediate service. If you can touch on how that process works, that would be most helpful.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member may well know that there are two components to that program. The enforcement component is through the Attorney General -- so I can't speak to that. As for service to our clients, to the people who visit and look for support from our ministry, they have access, through our ministry office, to information and support in working through the family maintenance program.

[ Page 925 ]

L. Reid: Is there a storefront? Is there somebody they can talk to, whom they can make an appointment with? The concern seems to be that it's not possible to do that.

Hon. J. Smallwood: We have approximately 300 offices throughout the province for the Ministry of Social Services, so any family receiving income assistance and eligible for family maintenance can access that program through our offices. We have 77 specialized family maintenance workers within the Ministry of Social Services, but each and every office we have can provide information and support to our clients.

L. Reid: I'll be happy to take that back.

Disabilities and programs. I need to talk a bit about employment opportunities, what kinds of services are available for retraining for individuals with disabilities, and if there is any likelihood that service levels will be increased in the next mandate of your office.

Hon. J. Smallwood: All of our employment and training programs have been enhanced. It is a priority of this government to develop bridging programs to support people to full employment. We recognize that there is a need to develop more comprehensive and sensitive bridging programs for everyone. The disabled community is not excluded from that. We have a number of programs that specifically support the disabled community. We have an employment initiatives program that currently services 743 of our clients. We have professional support services. We have a self-help skills program for our clients, and that has been increased by 27 percent. Also included in our budget are achievement centres and supported work.

L. Reid: I've had the opportunity to sit on a platform with the minister in terms of mental health issues, and it certainly seems to be a significant issue for both of us to advance. My concern rests with counselling services available to children at this time. As an administrator of an elementary school, I often had the problem of parents being told that their child was not of the correct age to access a program. I'm interested to know what kinds of things are in place for elementary-age children in terms of severe emotional difficulty -- psychiatric involvement. Can we have some services in place for younger children so that they don't have to suffer those symptoms for so many years, as the problem then becomes compounded because they have behaviours at that point that need to be unlearned?

Hon. J. Smallwood: A number of the issues the member refers to flow through a number of ministries, as I'm sure you're aware -- the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health specifically is responsible for mental health services, for assessments. But for this ministry, we have one program in particular that.... I shouldn't single one out; we have a number of programs. One of which I like especially well is the at-home program. The infant development program provides support for families, for very young children before they even enter the school system, in the hope that not only will we support families in dealing with often extraordinarily difficult situations, but support those children and provide them the best opportunity possible so that they are able to enter the school system and achieve their goals.

In addition, there are a number of programs specific to specific needs. One of those I might mention is the autism program. We have a budget that will be enhancing that program. There is a rehab program in school. We have interministerial work that is ongoing around sexual abuse. We have worked with the Ministry of Education as well as Health to enable people working with children in school to identify and support children that are victims of sexual abuse. That particular program is a program that also has a very good reputation.

For the first time in this ministry there is a dedicated amount for the Sullivan protocols, which specifically address our relationship in support of children in school. That amount is $4.7 million, and I think it is important for us to acknowledge that the previous budgeting process -- even though the previous administration had the Sullivan report -- did not choose to fund it, so we are a little bit behind. There is funding in this ministry as well as the Ministry of Education for the Sullivan protocols. We'll be looking forward to that money supporting children and families.

L. Reid: The programs that you especially like, I also believe are absolutely outstanding. I am very familiar with the infant development program and the autism program.

My question is regarding services to elementary-school-age children who require counselling. Typically those students are special-needs students, and you mentioned that it's an interministerial dilemma. That is exactly my point. There seems to be tremendous confusion over who delivers the service. It's not an education issue if the child is special-needs, and it certainly doesn't seem to be a social services issue. Someone needs to take responsibility for those students who are experiencing difficulties -- compounded by a special-needs difficulty. A psychiatric counselling model needs to be in place. I would like to know if one ministry is going to take responsibility for it, so that parents in this province will know who they can address their questions to.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The Sullivan protocols specifically target younger children, and the amount of money in the Sullivan protocols is $4.7 million. That is a considerable commitment to begin the programs within schools and will provide a base for us to build on in the years to come. In addition, this ministry has family advancement workers. We will have an announcement in the next while around a package of money in support of families. The family advancement workers are workers that we feel are instrumental not only in supporting families and children that are in need of support, but specifically in helping families address children with needs, even within the school system.

[ Page 926 ]

L. Reid: Can I deduce from your remarks that counselling services for elementary-school-age children are in the bailiwick of the Ministry of Education?

[3:00]

Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.

V. Anderson: I'm just following up a couple of questions of concern that came because of the confusion over payments of cheques this week. One of the concerns came from a disabled person and another one came from a person that's normally not able to get out, so their cheque comes by mail. I am wondering if there is a way that they can get some assistance because of the difficulty that occurred in this past week. Some of them have indicated that if they could go into the office, they might get a crisis grant, but they're not able to do that in a very easy or effective way. I'm wondering what facilities are available for them or for others in similar conditions, because of the confusion that has arisen.

Hon. J. Smallwood: There are two options if people are in need. We provide crisis grants and will do so. If an individual is homebound and unable to go to the office to obtain a crisis grant, you should advise them to call their worker, and the worker will then be able to make a home visit and provide support.

V. Anderson: One of the other issues that came up in the same phone calls this week -- well, two of them -- was a concern that the three-day period before the end of the month, which they thought normally was three working days before the cheques came out, has been shifted to two. That was confusing, because they were counting on that.

The other was about the exemption you announced of $100 for a single person instead of $50 and $200 for a family. When did that come into effect? There seems to be some confusion out there as to when that was effective. Is it retroactive to a certain date, or what is the date of effectiveness of that program?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The effect will be on the May cheque, which will be the end of May. Formal announcement of that is forthcoming.

V. Anderson: The effect of this is on the May cheque, so that would apply to money that was earned in April. If you earned extra money in April, would it apply in April? I guess that's the question. What period of time that the money was earned in would this apply to?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Our cheques are actually payments in advance. So the cheque coming at the end of May would be the first cheque to actually be affected by this change.

V. Anderson: Naturally, when a change comes, everybody would like to have it sooner rather than later. But thank you very much.

You have been dealing with a cross-section of views as people have brought their current questions to you. I would like to go back to the process we were doing at the beginning of working through the estimates for a little bit, in order to follow through the pattern.

We were on the area of adoptions when we ceased that process before. A couple of questions came up in that regard, and I wasn't sure that I completely understood the answers to them. What is the ministry doing to help persons who wish to work through a private adoption process rather than the ministry adoption process?

Hon. J. Smallwood: If the question is about what this ministry does to facilitate private adoptions, this ministry does not facilitate private adoptions. We have an adoption service within the ministry. As far as private adoptions in this province are concerned, there is legislation governing private adoptions that was passed in the House last year.

V. Anderson: I didn't quite hear the end of the response. Did you say that private adoptions were handled through the Ministry of Attorney General? They're private under the regulations passed by what body?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The law is ours.

V. Anderson: The law is within the Ministry of Social Services. That's what I was trying to understand.

The Chair: Hon. members, I must request that you address the chair, and furthermore that you be standing in your place when you speak.

V. Anderson: I have one other question on adoptions. This is a question that people have asked and one that I personally have had some experience with. What kind of process or counselling is required of persons coming through the ministry for adoptions?

I might give you background. We have an adopted youngster ourselves -- not a youngster any more, but grown up -- and in the process that we went through there was nine months of counselling. No matter how you got a child, it took you nine months. There was nine months of counselling, once a month -- both individually and collectively -- and it was a process that we found very meaningful and helpful. I was wondering what kind of process is used here for counselling of families, in selection of and approving them.

Hon. J. Smallwood: Currently within the ministry, for each potential adoption we do an extensive home study. The member is correct that home study, because it is so extensive, often takes about nine months. During that process the ministry goes through all of the issues with the potential adoptive parents and works through any questions or difficulties they may have.

V. Anderson: As some of the issues have already been covered in your previous discussions with other members, I would like to move on to the community support services to that particular group of ministries. I 

[ Page 927 ]

notice that in this particular area the vote increased by $62 million. This was on top of $26 million the year before, even though out of this total the at-home program had been subtracted -- which would have probably indicated a decrease. But there's been an increase, and I'm wondering just where the major thrust was in the increase in this particular section on community support services.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The item that the member is looking at -- community support services -- is merged under day care and services for special-needs children. The budget allocation is $64.43 million. I'm not sure what specific question the member had.

V. Anderson: Maybe we could focus for a moment, under community support services for STOBs 80 and 82, where there has been an increase of $10 million on one hand and $50 million on the other hand. I'm wondering about the focus of these increases and the focus of the program or changes resulting from this $62 million increase.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member should know that the comparisons he's making are not valid comparisons. The budget book that he's using for last year is not the actual amount spent. There are a number of differences between the books that he has, and they are impacted by administrative changes of programs between ministries and differences or changes in the uptake of programs, etc. What we're doing here is comparing apples and oranges. If the member would like to ask specifics about the policy and implications for this program, such as where we're headed and how much we spent last year, I'd be more than happy to....

V. Anderson: Earlier we were discussing the special-needs children who come under this category within this area. Is the assessing of these children's special needs done by social workers or by medical doctors and medical personnel, or is it a combination of these? Is that report then made available to the families? I know there are people wondering how this is arrived at.

The subsequent question is: what kind of funding or support comes with the designations after they have been arrived at? Is that simply for the children and for the children in the family concerned?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The assessment is done in a variety of ways. It's a team assessment. For the most part, though, that is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, often done through the public health nurse. The actual support is provided in a number of different ways, depending on the specific needs of the child.

V. Anderson: Since that has been quite adequately discussed in many of the other questions, I would move on to the program for mentally handicapped adults, because this is getting increasing interest, attention and support. I noticed the increase for this year is $40 million. I was wondering, in this particular area, how much of this is due to increasing caseloads, or how much of it is due to the downsizing of persons who might have been in other kinds of care and are coming back in? How much of it is due to the increase in the kind and nature of services now being offered to these people?

Hon. J. Smallwood: All of the above.

V. Anderson: If the minister wouldn't mind, Mr. Chairman, could she give me at least a brief explanation of what all of the above means? It could be helpful. Thank you.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is correct. The increases are impacted by all of the above. If that was the question, that is the answer.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, at the expense of being ruled out of order by you -- often -- I'm very pleased to enter these debates on the Ministry of Social Services.

On the whole, throughout the years that I've been involved in government, I certainly have the highest regard for the senior and local staff involved with the ministry, who do an exceedingly fine job, and I commend all of the staff throughout British Columbia for the conscientious and compassionate job that they do in often very difficult circumstances. Often there is a tendency in some individuals to abuse them, but on the whole they do a tremendous and creditable job. Perhaps I have less comfort with the present government, and the present minister will certainly have to earn my respect for a commitment to the people who require assistance at the present time through her ministry.

[3:15]

It seems to me that if the present government was as committed to providing job opportunities for the people of British Columbia as the minister is committed to providing additional social service benefits to those requiring it, we would indeed have a far superior province. I think the minister, because I've heard her when she was the opposition critic in this particular area, is well aware of the holistic approach that we have to take for the benefit of individuals out there -- and that's the mental, emotional and physical as well as the spiritual. Simply increasing funding on the GAIN program does not strengthen or enhance the capacity of individuals to make their own way in society, and certainly the fulfilment for all of us is recognizing that we have that capacity within ourselves, and that we have a government that is concerned about providing an environment where we can in fact do so.

I have some specific questions with respect to people who are, perhaps through birth or through polio at a very early age, physically handicapped. We have a situation in Canada where to qualify for the federal disability pension, you had to have contributed for I believe five years, and had to have been injured on the job. Then you can collect your federal disability pension, which I believe is substantially superior to the provincial handicapped pension. The handicapped pension that we have in the province is superior to the GAIN, but it's exceedingly difficult for individuals to 

[ Page 928 ]

qualify. In my constituency, I have a number of individuals who are severely handicapped yet apparently not severely enough to qualify for that particular program. They are virtually doomed to a whole lifetime of frustration -- with the inability to satisfy their ambitions for even a very basic, minimal quality of life. We doom them to inadequate housing and inadequate quantities of nourishment of all types. I think that something has to be done.

I would like the minister to advise me of her thoughts on this subject, and how we could enhance the opportunities for those in genuine need who are physically handicapped.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm very pleased to see that member find his feet. I'm also very tempted to ask that member a few questions myself, starting with: where were you? Since you outlined all of those difficulties.... Your government created this mess. Your government created a situation where we have a 20 percent increase of expected caseloads over last year and had 17 percent the previous year. That has to do with economic management.

I agree with you totally. This ministry can only function if it functions in a holistic manner -- if we function in cooperation and consultation and in a planning, proactive way with other ministries of this government. There is no separation in my mind between economic and social.

The solution is not cleaning up the mess after another government has failed. This government and this ministry will be involved in creating new jobs and new opportunities, because we feel very strongly that the talents, skills and strengths of those people on income assistance are being wasted. It will be the responsibility of this ministry to support and recognize the contributions that they can make to this province and support them in fulfilling their personal goals and making British Columbia a much stronger and much more active province economically.

The member asked about the pensions issue. I don't have to remind this member that pensions are federal and that this government in particular chose not to provide a pension for the disabled, but rather developed a needs-based program. The program within this ministry -- GAIN for the disabled -- is needs-based. It is not a pension.

The problems that you have outlined are problems that this government has inherited because of your inaction. We are reviewing the programs and will look for an opportunity for meaningful input, not only from you -- and we'll welcome that -- but from the community, from disabled people and from their families to develop a program that is more supportive. Once those questions have been put on the table in a fulsome and holistic fashion, we'll look at real reform to income support, including support for disabled people in this province.

The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. opposition House Leader, I wonder if the committee would permit me to introduce our new Clerk of Committees, Brenda Fraser, from the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I was rising to do the same thing: to welcome to this committee and to this House today a new Clerk at the table, a new table officer, Brenda Fraser, who has served as a table officer in the Legislature of New Brunswick. It's an important occasion. I don't mean to interrupt the good debate which is ongoing, but this is an important occasion, where we have a female table officer joining the table. I think it will add to the House. The table officers add an important element of stability to the proceedings of this Legislature, which is sometimes much needed. We all welcome Brenda Fraser and look forward to her advice and counsel over the many years to come, we hope.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I was suspicious for a while that you might rule the minister out of order for diverging and becoming entirely political. It's such a foreign element to become political in this Legislature.

Nevertheless, if the minister cares to check her files, she will find a number of letters written over the past number of years to me by various Ministers of Social Services, with my specific concerns. I haven't been silent -- in letters or in caucus. The fact of the matter is that in spite of a minister who protests perhaps a bit too much, the obligations are on that minister and on this current government to do what they know has to be done to make things better for those people who are physically or mentally handicapped.

In that vein, rather than reminiscing over their version of what has transpired over the past five years.... I noted that the minister agreed with me about equality and competence in the ministry, and I'm quite proud of that. Nevertheless, I want to know what this current government is going to do to open up. When we talk about access for either mentally or physically challenged individuals, how do we open up the access into employment for those individuals -- albeit perhaps part-time and at lower levels of pay? It's exceedingly important. The ministry -- and the minister in the House at the present time -- has to be the doorway, the opportunity, for that to transpire. What is happening there? What is the ministry doing to enhance employment opportunities for both physically and mentally challenged individuals in the province?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I won't go over the information that I've already shared with the member and other members just very recently on employment programs and support for disabled people around a variety, and quite a wide range, of employment and supported employment opportunities.

What I will do is bring to the member's attention the fact that we have increased the earnings exemption. Since we've already been talking about it in the House even prior to our announcement, the House may feel some comfort in knowing that discussions around earnings exemptions happened here first, even before they were officially announced to the rest of the province. The earnings exemption will help support all people who are eligible for income assistance, including the disabled community. That sort of bridging and support to either part-time or full-time work will vastly 

[ Page 929 ]

improve opportunities for the disabled community to gain work experience and skills.

Finally, the member indicated that if I would look at my files, I would see that on a number of occasions he offered advice to the previous minister. Sadly, I have to report that when I acquired my office, all of the files were gone. So I'm unable to check to see what the member's record was or, indeed, what the previous minister's record was.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased; the earnings exemption increase is certainly welcome. As a matter of fact, I think you should look at escalating the earnings exemption increase to encourage those people who are employable. The shock of going to work is certainly substantial. When you look at the economics of the situation, there is the cost of going to work -- driving to and fro -- and the cost of clothing. There is a substantial increase in costs, so somehow there has to be a systematic approach to facilitate that transition. There's a psychological transition and an economic transition, and both are difficult challenges for those individuals.

The question that I wanted to refer to the minister is: what is this government going to do to create the environment? Surely the government can't expect the private sector to create the environment where there are job opportunties. Surely the government has to facilitate and perhaps show systematic leadership in providing employment opportunities for those who are physically and mentally challenged in order to give them the opportunity to fulfil their opportunities in the world of today.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to thank the member for all of the good support he has given the work we have underway in the last five or six months. I encourage the member to look at the record of debate, because a number of the issues and the opinions that the member is bringing forward reflect my very comments.

V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I think there is one place on which the minister, the member from the third party and myself would all be in agreement, and that is in affirming the validity of increasing the exemptions that people may keep from their earnings and also urging that those exemptions be increased even further so that they may keep more of what they earn.

I know from talking to many of them that they would like to be out earning and getting the experience. They would be able, through that experience, to get the references they need before they're able to get a full-time job. We hope there will be more announcements forthcoming in regard to the increase of those earning exemptions. If there can be any encouragement from the minister, we would be glad to hear that and to share that.

Along with that, I was interested in the discussion between the last two speakers on a pension rather than on a need-based program. I would be delighted to hear more about what that might involve and the possibility of that in the future.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I am very strongly committed to a process of consultation. I'm not going to presuppose the information that will come back to us through that consultation. I've already advised the member that we will have future policy and hopefully something for this Legislature within this session. I look forward to the member's support around that.

[3:30]

Currently I have a number of ad hoc advisory groups in place that represent the disabled community, both disabled people and their advocates, as well as professionals providing information on a range of issues, including the important questions that the previous member had for us around employment support programs and bridging programs. I can't emphasize enough the need for appropriate and sensitive bridging programs that support people back into the workforce rather than set them up for negative experiences.

I would like to share with the member a previous question that you had, just to elaborate on it a little bit. You asked about the increase in the adult mentally handicapped portion of the budget. There are three, as you had indicated. Those are placements of persons from institutions; that increase is $20.6 million. For placements of persons currently in the community there's an increase of $9 million. Included in that is a commitment to wage-parity enhancement that is $10.3 million, because we are very concerned that those people providing support and working with people in the community have wages that will encourage good training, good quality of service and stability.

V. Anderson: I am glad of those and would approve of all the things that you have suggested, because I had mentioned previously how important it is that the workers in the field get the kind of support they need. I presume that will go to the clerical staff and the other staff, as well as the other front-line professional staff.

Coming back for a moment to the mentally handicapped concerns, as has been mentioned many times, housing is a major concern for many people, and for some of those people with mental handicaps this is an increasing difficulty in the shortage of housing and the cost of housing. Are the two programs I'm aware of at this moment -- the semi-independent living program and the community residence program -- being increased, and if so, what might be the nature of these increases, and how would people be able to access them most effectively?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. J. Smallwood: The figures I just shared with the member reflect increased support for placements; that is the accommodations for people coming out of institutions and for individuals in communities needing placement.

V. Anderson: Could you elaborate just a little bit on the final one in this particular area? What is the program of increasing the number of spaces and 

[ Page 930 ]

opportunities for people available in the community that would be more effective and also more livable than some of the places that people have been living in the past?

Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member is referring to people living in institutions, I take the opportunity to restate this ministry's and this minister's commitment to community living and to supporting individuals living in their community. I believe that the enhancement in this area indicates this minister's support for those community placements. We recognize that the issue around the institutionalization is not complete. We will continue that process, but only with the full assurance that we have the community placements there and the infrastructure available for those individuals -- and for their families so the families can be comforted that their family members have good, decent, secure places to live.

V. Anderson: I wasn't thinking particularly of those coming out of the institutions, because I'm very aware of what you're trying to do in that regard. I was thinking more of those people who have been living independently but in private facilities that were really not acceptable. Because there has been a cutback in federal housing programs, what projects are underway to increase the availability of private housing these people might be able to rent with funds that would enable them to get into that kind of housing?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm a little clearer now where the member is heading. The issue of private housing is no longer within this ministry. The issue of housing, and support in particular for affordable housing, falls under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

V. Anderson: I'm aware of that, and as has been discussed in other areas, what we're raising again is the need for interministerial cooperation, because they have the houses and you have the people, and these two have to be put together. It's that process that needs to be worked on.

The other area is the question of the grants and contributions. The grants have gone down and the contributions have increased. I'm wondering, what is the difference between the grants and the contributions? What do these particular areas cover?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Perhaps the member can refer to the specific STOB that he is reading. As far as the description of grants and contributions, I refer the member to the description or the definition in the front of his book.

V. Anderson: The community projects funding -- I'll move on to that one at the moment. The community project funding is just one figure there under STOB 82, which is just over the $7 million. Would you indicate as to what the areas of the funding are in this category?

The Chair: Member, could you clarify your question, please?

V. Anderson: Under community projects funding, the STOB 82: $7,265,000, the contributions: what is the area that these contributions cover? What are the contributions to, or for?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm just looking at the time, and it's 3:40 p.m. I have a number of pages here -- I'm not sure how many -- but if the member would like, I could read the specifics. No? The types of community grants or community projects fall within a number of categories. Family service projects: those projects are to assist families through counselling programs, parenting and support and training for self-help groups. Youth projects provide activities for young people to enable them to participate in their communities in a positive and responsible fashion. Programs vary according to the needs of the youths served. Low-income groups help low-income families and individuals in their communities. Services include: information exchanges; organizational assistance for self-help groups; counselling; and practical assistance in such areas as accommodation and moving, money management and effective use of community resources. Services to the handicapped provide services to people with disabilities in a variety of program areas. Volunteer services: funding is available for volunteer bureaus to assist in coordinating the efforts of local volunteers.

I have broken out the regions, and I'll give you a spattering of some of the agencies that we actually provide support to: Deltassist Society, volunteer services, Family Services of Greater Vancouver, Richmond Family Place Society, Richmond volunteer society, Association of Neighbourhood Houses of Greater Vancouver, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Catholic Family Services, Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Centre of Greater Vancouver, John Howard Society, Indian Homemakers' of British Columbia, Marpole and Oakridge family place society -- is that possibly in the members riding? -- Riley Park Community Association, Vancouver Life Skills Society, and the Vancouver volunteer society.

In Region B we have: Capilano Community Services, Queen Mary Community School, West Vancouver -- and I really am picking randomly because I think that if I gave you all of them, this may take a little longer than even the member's prepared for.

Region C, which is Fraser north: the Canadian society for information for children, citizens' development fund, Big Sisters, Coquitlam SHARE Society, Greater Coquitlam volunteer bureau, Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows Community Services Council, Mission Community Services, New Westminster, Lower Mainland Community Housing Registry, Fraserside Community Services, Port Coquitlam. And it goes on and on: Abbotsford, Agassiz, Chilliwack, Hope, Surrey -- not enough here for Surrey -- White Rock, Castlegar, Creston, Kelowna, Nelson, Penticton, Armstrong, Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Mackenzie Counselling Services Society, Dawson Creek friendship centre, Fort Nelson-Laird Native Friendship Society, Fort St. John, North 

[ Page 931 ]

Peace Community Resources Society, Houston Health Care Services Society, Kitimat Community Services Society, Queen Charlotte Islands Health Care Society.

Region K: Comox, Nanaimo and Parksville; there are a number of services in each. South Island -- and I'm not only skipping community projects, but now I am skipping communities. Into South Island: Cowichan Lake, Duncan, Saltspring, Victoria area. And we have a number of provincewide grants including the B.C. Association of Volunteer Centres, B.C. Parents in Crisis, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Canadian Paraplegic Association, Canadian Wheelchair Sports Association -- just to name a few.

V. Anderson: The comment of my colleague sitting next to me was: "That's an awful lot of things to be done with a little bit of money." He was quite impressed. I think more people need to be made aware of how much is happening in this area and how much this money in itself is complementary to the volunteer work and to the other programs that these people are putting in. That's a message within itself.

[3:45]

I hope your sharing will enable us to get it across to more people. Unless they have been directly involved, people are not aware of these programs -- they don't always get that much publicity -- as being related to the Ministry of Social Services. They seem to be independent, unrelated projects, so I think it's important that they're aware of this.

The last one in that category is Woodlands. We've had a number of questions about the present state and future of Woodlands. Just looking at the budget figures, we noticed that there's a steady decrease over time. Perhaps the minister could share with us the plan and undertakings with regard to Woodlands at this point.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to agree with the member. Again, that is important work -- to recognize not only the contributions that those community groups are making to families and to their community, but also the support and good work that is provided by this ministry. I take that as a good piece of advice. I agree with the member and will be encouraging and supporting the ministry's work in the years to come.

We're doing a little bit of -- I'm tempted to say -- bragging, because we feel very proud of the support that we give to that good work. For the member's reference, I would point out that the full list of community projects is included in our annual report. If you're interested in that full list and the extensiveness of that list, you might look at our latest annual report that was tabled in the House.

As far as Woodlands is concerned, with its continued downsizing, the deinstitutionalization and the investment that this ministry is placing in communities to support those individuals who are leaving Woodlands, its budget subsequently is being reduced. We are currently at a point, however, that the reductions in the cost of supporting Woodlands are slowing down because of the need to support the plant or the infrastructure as we continue this deinstitutionalization.

At present there are approximately 150 residents at Woodlands. The previous year saw 250 residents, so that refers to my earlier comment about the reduction. The reduction is not commensurate with the number of current residents, because it costs more to keep the plant going.

V. Anderson: I'll move on to the category of programs for independence, which is of course one of the larger categories of the ministry and which has already received many questions and discussion within the ministry. Perhaps there are some specific questions that come up here that we might raise particularly.

One of these has been the recognition of family size with regard to recognition of moneys that persons are able to earn in their earning exemption, whether there may be a shift as part of your review to take into account the family size for the amount of money that people may earn and keep out of the earning, and whether this may also apply to the amount of money being kept that comes through maintenance payments.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm afraid that I'll have to make the same reference to the member with regard to this question. This is impacted by the GAIN review, and we'll be looking at a comprehensive package around income support programs. We have increased the allowable-earnings exemption for families. In pushing it further than we're able to push it, we come up against a number of significant issues. Those issues will be grappled with by a very public and open review.

V. Anderson: I have one other question that came up earlier in the discussion with one of the colleagues here. When those people on GAIN are applying for assistance in receiving the child maintenance enforcement support, one of the difficulties that many have had is having to sign over to the ministry their authority under the child maintenance enforcement. I'm wondering if that is in the process of being changed, or whether it's at least under review at this point.

Hon. J. Smallwood: That program is under review, and is the subject of a future announcement.

V. Anderson: I know that the minister has received the proposed charter of welfare rights from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups. I am wondering whether this program will also be considered seriously as part of the review, or whether some serious reflection has already been given as part of your openness and communication, so that people are very clearly aware of rights and responsibilities that people on all sides may have.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The member is absolutely correct. I have received rather extensive communication from Federated Anti-Poverty on a number of issues that are of importance to them. We have addressed a number of those issues. We will be announcing some of those on a continuing basis, subject to announcements within this legislative session. For some of the issues that are little more difficult and take a little more time, 

[ Page 932 ]

we will be inviting groups such as Federated Anti-Poverty to be included in the discussion and the recommendations coming forward with regard to the bigger picture and the bigger package.

V. Anderson: I might be able to speak on their behalf for the encouragement at least. Knowing that this legislative session has to end between now and summer, I presume, then that's not such a very long period of time in which to expect these announcements. So that's a fairly encouraging sense that we have at least that time-frame within which to work, and also a sense that the issues not dealt with directly in this period of time are going to be identified and put out for study, so that people actually know that they're being worked on and that something constructive is going to be done on their behalf. So I'd like to thank the minister for that sense of direction and encouragement she has shown.

One of the concerns that has come up with persons on social services who would like to be able to have employment and get off social services -- and this may be a combined ministry response that's needed, I'm not sure -- is that while they are on social services, on GAIN, they have medical and dental coverage for themselves and particularly for their children. If they are to go off GAIN, then the cost of the medical and dental coverage then falls upon them. This is not a gap that they're able easily to cover, so they're reluctant to make the shift and lose that security, particularly realizing that there are already many people in British Columbia who do not have medical or dental coverage, even for the basic needs of children.

Hon. J. Smallwood: We have transitional programs in the workplace for single parents, for those qualifying for GAIN and for the handicapped. That would include the provision of health and dental care for a full year in that transitional period. We are -- and I'm feeling slightly repetitious here -- looking at all of these programs. I think it is only responsible for this government to do so, to take this time to address both the most immediate issues and plan in a comprehensive way with those communities and with those individuals that indeed are the experts. The member talked about the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups that have been working with families as advocates and have spoken out very strongly and very eloquently on behalf of people living in poverty in this province. I think it is important that I recognize and acknowledge the expertise that they will bring to the table, including issues around medical and dental services.

The member should know that while we are unable to deal with all of the issues in one short year, or indeed in five short months that we have been in government, we have made significant progress in reforming the system, making it more approachable and respecting the people that come to this ministry for support. I want to emphasize that the fundamental principles that are important to me are respect for not only the families, the children and for the individuals that come to this ministry, but indeed respect for the ministry workers and the good work that they are doing. That principle of respect and informed choice will drive the decisions that we are making and will govern the policies that we will bring forward to this House, both in this session and in the next.

V. Anderson: It raises another area that I would put before you to see if it's being considered. I know there was a time in the past when the NDP was in government, and some support was given to low-income advocacy groups. Many of them began to develop on their own with a minimum amount of support, which low-income people in poverty certainly can use. When that support was withdrawn for those groups, other groups like the churches, the groups that I'm aware of like PLURA, came in and gave them some support, which enabled them to continue to grow and develop in a limited way. Would it be a part of this ministry's program, in using these services once again and recognizing the validity of them -- as you have done here today -- to be able to give at least some limited core funding to help them, at least in their travel expenses and meeting expenses? They would thus be able to support you in a much more realistic way if that kind of opportunity is available to them.

Hon. J. Smallwood: The only thing I'll say at this point in time is that I believe it's fundamentally important not only to recognize that expertise, but to support that voice in the decision-making process. This ministry takes that responsibility seriously and will look forward in the next months to opportunities to do that.

V. Anderson: I know that each of us will put our own definition of what support might mean as you work into the future. But even with the fact that you have indicated the principle of support -- of recognition of the validity of these groups and the work they're doing -- is very significant and important in and of itself, as we discovered with some other things we've talked about, the expectation level of what that means will probably rise faster than the minister can respond. But that's the way life is sometimes.

[4:00]

The final area I will move to now.... The area of program independence is a very important one and would normally take a lot of our time; it has been covered in many of the other questions that have been put before you, and I don't want to repeat that.

One of the interests that I have about these services to seniors.... If I remember rightly, in your previous discussion you indicated that the number of seniors who had this particular need for the services of your program was declining. As with some other members, we hear that, but find it difficult to understand, because in our experience in the community the needs of seniors seems to be increasing rapidly. We'd like to get a little more explanation of this program, which has basically either decreased or remained static in its funding. The increase you have mentioned is in senior counsellors, which is primarily a volunteer group, so there's not a lot of funding involved there. I'd be interested in this very important area of seniors -- why that seems to be 

[ Page 933 ]

decreasing in its importance within the ministry rather than increasing or at least holding the line.

Hon. J. Smallwood: As I indicated to the previous questioner, the program itself -- the requirements to qualify for that program -- has not changed. What is happening is that there is a decreasing population qualifying for that program. You should realize that because the income supplement program is part of the income safety net, it will be subject to the reviews, so we'll have an opportunity to look at any problems arising from that program. We'll ensure that seniors have a voice in that review.

V. Anderson: You anticipated my question which came from your comment the other day when you mentioned that the requirements to qualify for this program had not changed. I think I understood by your comment that there is a possibility -- and I hope a necessity -- that the requirements to qualify for this program will change, because circumstances certainly have changed for seniors out there. Like everyone else, they are finding it difficult to find housing to live in under the circumstances and income available to them, because the cost of living, of course, has increased considerably. Seniors are becoming highly pressurized, particularly those in many areas who have no supportive families and who are living completely on their own, unrelated to other supportive persons. Could the minister comment on what review might be taking place in the seniors' program?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll only restate my earlier comment. This is an income support program and will be subject to review, as are all our income support programs. I make the commitment once again that we will seek the expertise of those in need of this program and other seniors' advocacy organizations to help guide us in the development of our program, as we will do in all of our programs.

V. Anderson: I would like to perhaps do a brief summary and wind up at this point. From many of the responses which the minister has given, and will continue to give, I would like to indicate that as with the response regarding seniors that you gave just now.... I expect that although there have automatically been many submissions to the minister in her new position.... Having opened up as she has done in this discussion, indicating that she wants to hear from people, I am quite aware that she may receive many more submissions from now on than she has received to date. Hopefully they will have a different tone to them.

In the past, many of the submissions from groups have been: "Here's what we want, but we don't even think you'll read these, much less respond to them." Now there may be a tone to them indicating: "Since we expect that you will not only read them but may respond to them, here is what we would like you to hear and see, and we would like you enter into dialogue with us." My premonition is that if the minister has been busy -- and I have no doubt she has been -- she's going to be even busier with what she has presented, through this discussion, to the public at large.

I have very much appreciated the openness. I will promise the minister that she will not be neglected in question period in the future. She will get her fair share of the questions that come from us.

I want to acknowledge the changes that she has suggested are in place and will be put in place, starting with the computer program phone-in number which she is using as one means of making information available to people -- and many other ways that it would be made available to them. She has indicated that there will be a decrease in the caseloads of workers -- and that's a very significant undertaking -- in order that those who come for this service will feel that they're more personally dealt with in this program.

I'm also aware that she has indicated there would be new training opportunities for the people within the community, and that these training opportunities will be revamped and revised, using the clients themselves as part of those people raising issues and concerns, as well as the professional resources that are available. I am interested that she has emphasized the place of family and children, and that children in care will be seen first of all as children in care with their families, and secondly as in care with substitute facilities which will be as familylike as possible.

She has reflected the multicultural awareness of the community in which we live, and she has reflected the particular needs of the aboriginal community. In addition to the particular needs of the aboriginal community, I hope she will also be picking up the particular wishes and desires of the aboriginal community. I have discovered in the past that what others may feel are their needs are not really their desires, and we need to respond to that.

The minister has said that she will be engaged in interprovincial and federal-provincial discussions in these areas of joint concern. I hope we will hear some positive results from those discussions, because they are very important.

She has also indicated an interest -- I'm not as sure of the details of this -- in the area of teenage concerns and programs for young people: job understanding, education, community adjustment, street people. The whole area of teenage programs of responsibility is one that seems to be very important in the community in which we live and needs to be responded to.

The question of revamping the responding to the needs of children who may need some protection and care, but balancing this with the same family protection and care, is most important.

She has indicated that the GAIN rates are very inadequate; that the poverty in which people have had to live for so long is unacceptable; and that, to respond to this awareness, there will be fairly drastic changes, I trust, which will go across the whole range of age groups, including seniors and families, single parents, young couples, whatever the need might be.

She's also indicated that 80 percent of her programs go to non-discretionary funding, funding which she is required by law to deal with. I understand that in these 

[ Page 934 ]

areas, perhaps, she'll also be working across ministerial boundaries to have these statutory regulations altered.

Finally, I might say at this particular moment that the open-door policy that she has suggested is very important. It will probably take a little while for it to get across to people, because I would reflect to the minister that even during this week, as people have tried to deal with the concern about cheques not arriving -- attempting to contact the service offices, the information line and even the minister's office itself -- they did not feel that the lines were open or that the response was acceptable to them. I wanted to just feed that back, because I think the open-door policy means that people are very sensitive when they try to respond to it and they do not find it open to them -- even more sensitive than they would be if they had the experience, as in the past, when they didn't expect the doors to be open. But when they expect the doors to be open and find the information is not available or the response is not positive, then they're even more critical of it.

I would like to thank the staff also for their diligence in being here, for putting up with a variety of ways of responding to questions that we have presented and for being friendly and wholehearted about it. I hope you still look forward to working with us, as we look forward to working with you. It seems very important to me that, as a total Legislature, we serve the people of the province and our constituencies as one unit so that what we do is not to their detriment but to their benefit.

I would thank the minister and the staff for this opportunity of sharing her understanding of the programs, to which we look forward with a great deal of interest, anticipation and critical oversight. Thank you very much, hon. Chairperson, for this opportunity.

[4:15]

Vote 56 approved.

Vote 57: ministry operations, $2,364,217,282 -- approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

On vote 60: minister's office, $392,000.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We now turn to Transportation, of course. I'd like to make just a few introductory comments. We have taken office obviously at a very difficult time. In the budget process that we are partway through, we are all aware that my ministry has given up some 15 percent of the budget from last year -- approximately $180 million -- in order to meet critical requirements in other sectors of our administration, specifically health care and education.

As a consulting engineer in a former life, I'm well aware of the needs we have in transportation. I'm well aware of the consequences of not providing the enhanced transportation system that we need. But we've had tough decisions to make, and we've made those decisions.

I've sat down with perhaps 40 or 50 mayors from around the province and explained to them the situation we find ourselves in. I have asked for their cooperation in this difficult fiscal period, and I'm pleased to say that they have all understood. They've all said that they will be back next year, but they have all understood that this is a matter of some pain that must be shared widely.

As a result, we are not undertaking any new major projects in our ministry -- for that matter, any new minor capital projects this year. Instead we have enhanced slightly our rehabilitation budget in order to take proper care of the infrastructure we have -- some $12 billion worth. We have, frankly, not provided enough to even do that task properly. We could probably have used another $70 million to $100 million just for rehabilitation. Unfortunately, although the need is real, the purse is empty, so we must live with a modest enhancement of last year's effort at rehabilitation.

We have left untouched the maintenance elements because they, of course, in the 28 maintenance districts, are contractual. We have entered into, as you would be aware, new roughly three-year-term contracts for that element totalling some $300 million. We are completing multi-year contracts on capital that add up to some $170 million around the province.

I've made every effort to share the pain fairly around the province and will be pleased to accept from members opposite any questions regarding our intentions for the coming year.

D. Symons: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the opening remarks by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I note that British Columbia has about 47,000 kilometres of roads and highways, and this a vital transportation network that has served the province well. The building of many highways in the fifties and sixties -- much of it under the direction of the famous, or possibly infamous, Minister of Highways Phil Gaglardi -- has much to do with opening up the economic development in this province.

But due to the economic slowdown of the last decade, we've seen cutbacks in the Highways ministry. We heard just moments ago of that continuing in that vein. This, combined with heavy use as population and traffic grows and as the size and weight of today's commercial vehicles increase, makes it more important than ever to invest in the maintenance and expansion of this important asset. On average, traffic has been increasing by 4 percent per year, and this increase has reached over 10 percent in rapidly growing areas such as Kelowna, Nanaimo, Richmond and the whole lower mainland of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. Our highways have not kept pace with this growth.

At a time when all levels of government face extreme pressure in preparing budgets -- and this is such a time -- there is a temptation to reduce the investment in roads in spite of how essential that infrastructure is to economic and social development, or in spite of how essential it is to employment generation. Unfortunately, that approach of reducing spending in our highways and roads seems to be the approach used by this government in this budget for Highways and Transportation spending in the fiscal year 1992-93.

[ Page 935 ]

I am concerned with this approach, and I ask what justification can be given for the priorities or lack thereof. I mean justification by way of this government's failure to recognize the importance of this ministry. In "A Better Way," the NDP campaign booklet for the election, promises 16, 25, 27 and 38 all promised better transportation highways. All these promises have been abandoned.

I would urge the government to consider expenditures on roads and alternative forms of transportation as essential rather than discretionary. Roads require substantial rehabilitation after about 15 years. If this investment is done in a timely way, it will not only deliver the benefits of good roads but bring enormous savings in the long run. Neglecting or postponing rehabilitation leads very quickly to the need for rebuilding, and that costs many times as much.

The benefits of a good road system are enormous, in both economic and social terms, to business, industry, government and individuals. Roads provide access to resources and markets. Good roads contribute to competitive transportation costs. They mean safer driving conditions and a reduced number of accidents, which impacts on insurance rates. I've not mentioned the time lost while people crawl along in their vehicles in traffic backups and the frustration that causes.

It also contributes an extra amount of pollutants to our atmosphere, adding to that problem. That, of course, brings out not only the need for good roads moving people quickly and efficiently, but it also brings up the need for alternative and more environmentally friendly modes of transportation. I would like to bring that up later during our discussion of these estimates.

I have maybe talked too long philosophically about my thoughts and concerns on Transportation and Highways, but I thought it might be valuable if we understood where each of us were coming from before we begin our item-by-item discussion of the ministry's budget estimates. I would invite the minister to respond to my opening remarks.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Before I respond, I'd like to correct an oversight on my part and introduce my staff: the deputy minister, Vince Collins; ADM on finance, Gordon Hogg; ADM on planning, Bruce McKeown; and ADM on operations, Dan Doyle.

I would further beg the indulgence of the House and all members present to make an introduction in the gallery, and before members vote, I would remind them that there are highway projects in all of your constituencies. So could I have the indulgence of the House?

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's an honour to introduce, visiting from the province of Alberta, the city of Calgary, my brother and sister-in-law, touring through British Columbia and visiting us for the first time here in the House. I would ask the House to help me make them welcome -- Pat and Jack Charbonneau.

F. Gingell: Madam Chair, seeing that we were successful in getting through one introduction at an unscheduled hour, I would ask leave of the House to make a second.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I would like to introduce my longtime friend, Mr. Jim Campbell, who is far more concerned with transportation to islands than he is with roadways. Mr. Campbell is well known in this province as a long-serving school trustee, a trustee of the Islands Trust, and a director and chairman of the Capital Regional District board. I ask this House to make him welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With regard to the hon. member opposite's introductory comments, many of his points, of course, I am in agreement with. There are environmental consequences, business cost consequences, safety consequences and social consequences. But we cannot, just by the wave of a magic wand, create the $4 billion or $5 billion that would be required to address all of these problems.

Whatever we desire to do, our desires must be bounded by the funds available. It is because of severe limitation of funds available, and I'm sure the member opposite would agree with our general thrust of attempting to get the deficit under control. If that is the case, we have difficult choices to make. We have made the choices of putting what resources we have into education, health care and social services on a priority for this fiscal year.

There are no projects abandoned, of course; there are projects that have been postponed. Far from neglecting the rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure, we are enhancing that budget above previous years' budgets. We have actually taken a modest but correct step in the right direction. I have no further comments on the opening comments and would now entertain any specific questions.

D. Symons: It's interesting to note that some time ago the NDP produced a document that talked about the need for integration of all the transportation functions under one ministry. I wonder if we could start this off with a few simple questions.

Is this still the belief of the NDP government? If that's the case, why is it that the B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Transit are no longer funded through this ministry?

One of your members in this House during the estimates debate in 1990 commended the previous government for this integration. We know that you rarely praised that government for anything. Could you outline exactly why these changes are necessary? Could the minister tell us what the makeup of the transportation planning council is at present, and how often they meet?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In answer to your first question, we certainly see that there is a need for coordinated services across all branches of transportation. At the present time, due to financial difficulties 

[ Page 936 ]

within the B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Transit, they have been moved over to the Minister of Finance. Nonetheless we will, through cross-ministry cooperation and coordination, continue to provide the kind of overview necessary in the transportation system.

With regard to your question on the transportation commission, I can provide you with the specific names at a later date. I'll take the question on advisement.

D. Symons: The last question was how often they meet. Is there a schedule or a regular meeting pattern for the transportation planning council?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The committee will be meeting on a regular basis. It has not yet come into function. It consists of myself, the deputy minister, the ADM of planning and the executive director of transportation and planning, plus the CEOs of B.C. Transit, B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries. It will be meeting from time to time with that membership.

D. Symons: I thank you. Given that the CEOs of B.C. Transit, B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries and the Attorney General are involved, doesn't it seem strange that your government has abandoned any form of integration of these services under your ministry? Or does the minister feel that B.C. Ferries can operate in isolation without consultation or support from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No. They will have to act in concert. To show evidence of that, we have funded a major transportation plan in the greater Vancouver area and also in the Capital Region to see to it that we have coordination all through the transportation sector. Those committees will be reporting next year; and before any major undertakings occur, we will have the benefit of the recommendations from those comprehensive studies. In the meantime, if there are specific decisions in those areas, there will be coordination between the ministries and with the ongoing studies to make sure that we're not pre-empting any recommendations coming down the line.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer, because it's vital that these operations are coordinated in a way that would be meaningful to all of them. It's certainly difficult to imagine expansion of the ferry fleet or docks without having highways to meet that expansion.

I would like now to get into the specifics and discuss vote 60 in the minister's office. With STOBs 3 through 6 under salaries and benefits, how many staff members are there in the minister's office now, and is this a greater or lesser number than under the previous administration?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have an authorized complement of eight on the minister's staff. At the present time there are seven.

D. Symons: Hark to the question, sir, that asked how many there were in the previous administration. Was it the same number?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Same number.

D. Symons: Thank you. It's sort of like tennis, isn't it?

I notice the total amount of salaries and benefits is the same as the 1990-91 fiscal year. Can we assume then that the salaries of the minister's staff have been frozen? And I'm curious: with a 15 percent cut in the global ministry budget, doesn't the minister feel there should be some changes in the staff levels?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no contemplated changes in salary levels at this time.

D. Symons: Under STOB 30, the office and business expenses under Vote 60, the amount shown is $17,500. Not a large sum of money, but last year this number was just $6,500 -- one-third of this amount. Could the minister please outline why his office has needed three times the amount for office and business expenditures?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the current fiscal year there is an allowance of some $11,000. My intention is to sit as the minister in Kamloops approximately one day every two weeks in order that mayors, councils and regional district people would be able to travel to Kamloops to discuss ministry business, to save them the considerable expense of travelling to Victoria. I might say that I have been undertaking this out of my MLA's office up to the present time, and I have met with a number of citizens' groups from various parts of the region, as well as perhaps four or five mayors.

D. Symons: If there is going to be a regional office for a minister, I would assume that it might be better to have it more centrally located at a place like Prince George. Is this going to be common practice for other ministers, each one of them opening a regional minister's office? You can't answer that.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If you would look at the map of British Columbia in terms of providing an office anywhere in the interior that would be more or less central to the population of the interior -- all the way from Prince George to Cranbrook -- it would be Kamloops. The expense of around $485 a month to have that space -- both for my executive assistant, who is posted in Kamloops, and myself, from time to time -- to accommodate those meetings is truly a trivial amount. That much would be saved several times over by a single municipality, in the process of a single visit. I'm pleased to say that the mayors who have thus far taken advantage of this are quite grateful for that opportunity.

D. Symons: I'd like to move on to vote 61, if we may. Under administration and support services, I understand that this vote applies to the executive, financial, administrative, personnel, information systems, internal audit and public affairs programs for the 

[ Page 937 ]

ministry. I understand also that this is a different way of accounting this year, as last year's policy, planning and municipal programs weren't broken down as a subvote. Is this correct?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, that is correct.

D. Symons: Could you elaborate on the reason for this change? It made it more difficult for us to try and track things when there is a different accounting procedure this year than last.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It was done to provide a better disclosure of the programs within the ministry.

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that. I found those in the 1992-93 budget were easier to follow and more meaningful, in a sense, than the previous ones. But, as I say, it was difficult to coordinate the two of them because of that change.

Under the transportation planning and policy branches, how many full-time equivalents are there in this department? Has this number increased or decreased?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total number is 67, and it is unchanged.

D. Symons: Again, as I mentioned earlier, I'm concerned that there seems to have been a reasonable cut in the total expenditure of the ministry, yet this does not seem to show up in any of the figures involving staffing and so forth. Should there not be some sort of cutback in that department then?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The ministry has assembled over the years a very competent staff to undertake a certain level of capital construction. We're suffering through a 15 percent reduction this year, which we do not anticipate will carry on in future years. Until such time as we are able to come back to full stride on our capital construction project, we wish to keep the team more or less intact to enable us to do that.

[Mr. Barnes in the chair.]

C. Tanner: We all are aware that contracted-out work is done on the highways through maintenance. Has the department in the past contracted out planning work within the department head office?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, we have.

I might just add, if I could, a point with respect to the previous question on the total staffing costs. It should be understood that because we have privatized the substantial amount of the engineering work related to design, the major reduction in design costs falls now on private consulting engineering firms. In fact, I met with the Consulting Engineers of B.C. a month and half ago to warn them that they could expect up to 220 layoffs in their industry. So the decrease of total design services is where the hit has fallen, as opposed to ministry staff.

C. Tanner: The planning of a highway and of new roads is an extensive process. Would it be your determination that having contracted out, the quality of planning has deteriorated? I'm not saying that the private contractor can't do it as well, but I'm saying that probably an inconsistency occurred in the past. Was that illustrated when you took over the ministry in November?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Your question is with respect to design?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I wouldn't say that there has been any deterioration. We have extremely competent transportation engineering consulting firms in the province, which have been in that business in a very major way for decades. They provide top-quality service when we do retain them. Many examples could be given to you of that. Beyond that, keep in mind that we retain within house the quality-assurance functions, so the quality is still to our standards, not to the standards of any individual consulting company.

C. Tanner: As a policy, has the department ever considered having what you might call a superministry, which would include not only B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit but also municipal government and tourism to be consulted on an ongoing basis when you're planning new highways or new arterial roads?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: First of all, in repeating from a previous question, I believe very much that we should strive toward the consolidation of the transportation functions back within a single ministry. We will leave that for sometime in the future. Before that occurs, it's going to be up to us as a ministry to make sure that the necessary planning occurs across ministry boundaries as required.

D. Symons: I would like to pick up on something that was asked by my colleague here. You responded that the cuts might come through one of the contracting-out companies. I'm curious, though -- and I haven't found that out; it was coming up later in my questioning -- as to where the funding for the salaries and so forth for those contracting companies would appear in here. Is it under planning or maintenance? Do they come under those salaries and benefits, or where do those figures occur in the estimates?

[4:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The individual amounts would be within either the minor or the major construction project budgets. Typically, 5 to 10 percent of each of those budgets would reflect design services associated with them. The cuts, then, will be within the 15 percent cut in our overall budget.

D. Symons: Thank you. That cleared up my concern about where the contracting figures would appear in the estimates.

[ Page 938 ]

How many people in the policy department are examining the possibility of tolls -- something that you brought up recently with the press -- and has any money in this budget been earmarked for studies of this sort? How much might have been put aside to study the feasibility of tolls on roads or bridges?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There is no one in the ministry currently studying that. There is one individual -- me -- talking about it, and there is perhaps a media committee of several hundred working on it.

D. Symons: If the minister is interested in this concept, I think it might make sense to study it and have some ministry people look into it, especially with regard to the feasibility of tolls. It isn't planned for in this budget, but might it be looked at in a more formal way, rather than just in a casual way as it currently seems to be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You can certainly rest assured that before any policy of tolls is implemented, it will receive thorough study and discussion. I have raised the issue generally in order to spark some debate on it, because I believe that we do have very severe transportation problems. Some of those problems could not realistically be addressed within the next 15 years if we left it to the regular budgetary process. If, for example, we turn to the suggestion of Peat Marwick.... Under my pressure, they've looked into that and have recommended that, yes, for example, we could go to a capitalization route. But it still remains: from where does the sinking fund get funded? I've simply raised the possibility that tolls would be one idea.

D. Symons: As the member may remember from my remarks to the press when they phoned and asked, I wasn't totally against the idea, although I had some concerns about the extent to which such a concept might be implemented. How far in advance does the ministry plan? Is there a comprehensive transportation plan for the province? Would this by chance be the Delcan report? As I recall, this report was not accepted by the NDP as a definitive provincial transportation plan when they were in opposition. I'm wondering if the NDP have changed their minds on this, or is your department now developing a new plan? If so, could the minister outline for us how this plan is being prepared and by whom?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The report that the hon. member opposite refers to, the Delcan report, was a precursor to the plan broadly given under the Freedom to Move plan of the previous administration.

At the present time, of course, we have had to delay. Number one, the Freedom to Move account never did exist in terms of money in it; it was a bookkeeping entry. We are no longer following that particular plan, but as I said earlier, we have major transportation studies occurring in the greater Vancouver area and in the capital region. We have a large variety of projects that have been planned -- trying to look several years ahead -- in the various regions and districts of the province on a rolling horizon basis. As funds become available we will firm up the particular plans that we wish to follow.

D. Symons: Part of my previous question involved a comprehensive provincewide plan. I think you answered that that's not quite in the works yet. You answered part of my next question, which was how far in advance, and it didn't seem to be a very long time-line there, but you might want to respond to that in a moment.

What guidelines are there for the priorities in this planning, for example, for the Commonwealth Games in Victoria? Has this had any impact on the planning process that should be ready for the traffic that the event will engender in this area?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Various occurrences around the province would be from time to time considered in the plans for the coming several years. In an example raised by the member opposite just this morning, the Commonwealth Games entered the planning picture -- albeit by the back door -- by taking the decision earlier today to proceed with a couple of elements at the McKenzie interchange in order to make sure that we could complete that project a month or two ahead of the Commonwealth Games, so that the ongoing construction doesn't interfere with the use of the roads at that time.

D. Symons: I must compliment the member on his extremely good eyesight in being able to read the next question, which was precisely on the McKenzie intersection that each of us probably passes on our way to and from home on the weekends. It's good to hear his plans to have that intersection completed before the Commonwealth Games takes place.

How many full-time-equivalents are there under administration and support services, and is this the same number as last year?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total is 225, and that is unchanged.

D. Symons: Are there any transportation economists in the department or any other department in the ministry? In the past your colleagues were extremely concerned with the lack of transportation economists, and I wonder how many the minister has hired since he was appointed last year.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I have not hired anyone since I assumed the portfolio, but we do have an individual with a doctorate in transportation economy. My assistant deputy has just pointed out that we also have a graduate student from UVic in transportation and economics working on staff.

D. Symons: Thank you. I believe it was Mr. Lovick who kept asking questions of that sort, so I thought I would just throw one of his questions back to you.

In this same way, he asked: "Are there any agrologists, geologists? Are there any people who know 

[ Page 939 ]

anything about water tables, water drains, seepage, etc.? Who is in the planning department?" Again, this is Mr. Lovick's concern with the previous Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's a hydrologist. There's a geologist. We do not have an agrologist on staff. Perhaps you could repeat all of the other "gists" that you mentioned.

D. Symons: Water table: you've got hydrology, drainage, seepage. I think hydrology would cover those. Any other specialty people in that line in your planning department in those particular interests?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, we have specialists in each of the broad divisions responsible. That is to say: on the rail side, on the marine side, on the aviation side and as well, of course, on transportation.

D. Symons: I wonder if I could just revisit the answer a moment ago dealing with the McKenzie intersection, because I and my colleague here differed a little bit on what you had said. I'd assumed you said that the intersection was going to be completed, and you used the words: "It wouldn't interfere with the traffic." I'm wondering if you could reassure the House that that intersection will be completed in its final stage over the next short period of time.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The decisions that I took today have to do with excavating along the existing route of McKenzie Avenue, and transferring that over into a preload pad on a portion of the Pat Bay Highway where we have some soft ground conditions. The reason that I've taken that decision is that I've come to understand in the past few days that that preload has to sit for a year in order to accomplish what it needs to accomplish. If we didn't proceed with that particular work now -- some $1.5 million that we're finding out of other projects on the Vancouver Island Highway project -- we were then not going to make the deadline of the games. By putting that preload on now, you can be assured that we will be able to complete the project in its entirety by roughly May or June 1994 -- a couple of months in advance of the games.

D. Symons: I thank you. I'm assuming a preload is what looks like sandbags built up on one side there of the road, and that's going to connect in with the bypasses. It seems to be constructed over to the east. I think I've got my directions right -- east side? Thank you.

This again is in vote 60, STOB 20, under professional services. What would these services be?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those would primarily be consulting contracts.

D. Symons: Could the minister outline for us how many people would be providing professional services to the ministry to the tune of over, I believe it's $4 million in one of these figures under transportation policy?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If your question is with reference to outside consulting, it would be in the order of 400 persons.

D. Symons: Under STOB 82, contributions, I note the figure of over $12.5 million. Last year, this figure was $20 million. Can all of this $8 million be accounted for through projects that are now completed? And if not, how are the municipalities, where I assume these contributions are going, going to finance projects?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Is the member opposite referring to the item of municipal incorporation grants?

D. Symons: Yes.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Those grants are offered to municipalities which, in the process of restructuring, take in certain roadways that are presently outside their limits. We have found that in the past, we've somewhat overestimated the amount of restructuring that would occur, and there was typically a surplus left in that particular account. We've reduced to $6 million for the coming year, but in fact we anticipate that all requests regarding restructuring will be able to be met.

[5:00]

D. Symons: What is the nature of these municipal grants and contributions -- you partly answered that -- and how are the projects prioritized: by municipalities, ministry or in consultation? On what basis are they justified as higher priorities than other municipal projects? Or will each municipality receive a proportional amount of that money?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The priorities are, in effect, set by the municipalities. If a municipality wishes to restructure in any given year, that's their decision. They simply come to us looking for a grant to cover upgrading of the road structure, such that they take it in at a higher level and save the local taxpayers the cost of doing that.

In addition, we grant them a five-year maintenance. We include it in our regular maintenance for some five years beyond that, before they have to take over the maintenance with municipal funds.

D. Symons: I just have about three more questions on this issue. I asked the question about prioritizing these, because I can imagine that each municipality feels that the project in their jurisdiction is the most important one in the province. Somewhere along the line someone has to decide how much each municipality is going to get for the projects that they have in mind. How can you, as Solomon, decide who gets how much? How is this priority decided?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm not certain if the member opposite is asking about the municipal incor-

[ Page 940 ]

poration grants or about revenue-sharing that is handled by Municipal Affairs, which Highways then carries out or checks -- vets. If you're referring to the municipal incorporation grants, then again I'm saying that the history has been that the uptake by municipalities on their own priority basis has been less than the amount budgeted. Although we have decreased the budgeted amount from $7.7 million to $6 million, we still anticipate that we will have sufficient in that budget item to cover all of the requests related to restructuring which will come through the fiscal year from the municipalities.

D. Symons: I'm having some difficulty, because you're referring to figures different from those I'm looking at under STOB 82, under the transportation policy planning description. I've got a $12,859,000 figure. Those were the contributions, and I was assuming that those were the contributions to municipalities. Then the concern was: how are these contributions prioritized between the municipalities? I'm sure that they all have many expensive projects they would like to see done and would like to approach the ministry on for funding.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think that the number the hon. member is looking at is the total of several different programs. There's the air transport assistance program, bridge assistance program, secondary highway capital program, secondary highway maintenance program and municipal incorporation grants program. The total of those would be in the $12.5 million category.

The largest single item is the municipal incorporation grants, which, as I say, are typically undersubscribed. On some of the other ones -- like secondary highway capital, which is about $4 million for this year, and the bridge assistance program, which is $1.2 million this year -- projects are brought forward by municipalities. We vet them to see that they fit within our own transportation plan and, on a priority basis, grant funds to municipalities for specific projects.

D. Symons: I think that it might be an opportune time, because I see Committee B coming in, that I say we rise and report progress.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

On vote 8: minister's office, $295,507 (continued).

Hon. A. Petter: As is customary, I'd like to offer a few opening words to share with members my view of where we are going and what we are trying to accomplish with this ministry, particularly since this is my first opportunity to participate in the estimates debate.

Few members of this House would argue that the existing state of relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples is either acceptable or workable. As a Legislature we have inherited a burdensome legacy of denial, both of the just aspirations of aboriginal peoples to regain self-sufficiency and independence, and of our responsibility for their diminished status and the dislocation of their communities.

From the outset of colonial government in British Columbia, there has been a sustained refusal to acknowledge aboriginal rights and to embody them in treaties. As a result, we have not made substantial progress toward regularizing relations between our societies, leading to frustration and anger from them and to uncertainty and apprehension from us. Our actions toward aboriginal peoples have marginalized and excluded them from the benefits of society, denying their close bond with the land, curtailing their freedom of movement and undermining their culture, language and values. The effect of these actions has been to strip them of independence and trap them in client-dependency relations with government.

Anyone who doubts this reality need only consult our shared history. Contact with European settlers and their subsequent administrations, ranging from acts of outright theft to more subtle methods of supplanting aboriginal tenure and culture, have been overwhelmingly destructive of aboriginal societies and the self-esteem of their members. Whether by design, conviction or default and paternalistic insensitivity, contact has undermined aboriginal self-sufficiency. Today we see the results of this destructive history in infant mortality and suicide rates in aboriginal communities that are twice the national average. We see it, too, in the disturbing incidents of alcoholism, disease and family breakdown. By removing their power to shape their own economic destiny, we have condemned aboriginal peoples to relations of dependency.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

[ Page 941 ]

One could invoke many shameful instances of the damage done to first nations in the last 150 years, but one can also identify a growing sentiment among non-aboriginal British Columbians that the time has come to break with the past and to restore justice and honour in our mutual relations. This sentiment in favour of reconciliation has, I believe, two sources: one is a desire to right past wrongs and to return to first nations their ability to look after themselves; the other is a need to normalize relations in the interests of economic stability and prosperity. Both require a willingness to set aside past misunderstandings and to embark upon a dialogue leading to meaningful change.

If we are to address the negative legacy of the past, government must adopt a new attitude to the old questions of aboriginal access to land and resources and of rights to self-government. Fundamentally this means a new approach to the resolution of disputes -- one that marks a clear departure from the denial and silence of the past. For non-aboriginal British Columbia, this represents the real fork in the road: the choice between a winner-take-all showdown in an unpredictable judicial arena and a collaborative approach based on negotiation in a climate of mutual respect. We believe that the avenue of negotiation is the only way to secure understandings that will place future relations on a positive and constructive footing. We see it as the best chance of attaining lasting results.

I want to point out that we are not the first to see the potential value of moving the issues from the courtroom to the negotiating table. The previous government, realizing the underlying desire of the majority to redress injustices and secure the benefit of lasting agreements, shifted its stance and began moving in this direction. The unprecedented step was its decision to come to the Nisga'a negotiating table, thereby acknowledging for the first time our responsibility to negotiate in good faith. The Social Credit government, to their credit, also worked with the federal government and the First Nations Summit to establish the B.C. Claims Task Force, and accepted the notion of a treaty commission to overcome the backlog of claims.

The priority of the new government is to create a framework that supports negotiation as the preferred means of reaching agreement with aboriginal peoples. We have openly accepted our obligation to sit down and arrive at workable treaties. We have endorsed the 19 recommendations of the B.C. Claims Task Force, including the recommendation to create the treaty commission, recommendations to inform the public about the nature and progress of negotiations, and the development of a comprehensive third-party consultation process. And we have said that while the federal government bears primary responsibility for the costs associated with settlement, we are prepared to pay our fair share. In order to address this question, we have initiated cost-sharing negotiations with the federal government while the treaty commission is being established.

Since our election last year, we have expressed our firm resolve to inaugurate a new relationship with aboriginal peoples. We have given substance to this resolve by recognizing publicly that aboriginal peoples do have inherent rights. By that I mean rights that do not flow from our legal system but from their prior position on this land. Among those are rights with respect to land and resources commonly referred to by aboriginal peoples as "aboriginal title," and rights with respect to self-determination commonly referred to as "rights of self-government." These rights derive from the reality that predated contact. Aboriginal peoples created orderly and varied societies on the land hundreds of years before European settlers arrived. For the first time, we have openly recognized these rights.

Regarding the inherent right of self-government, we have indicated our support for amendments to the federal constitution that will entrench this right. We have sought advice from aboriginal people, as we have from others, to determine what form this entrenchment should take, and we have assisted aboriginal groups to consult among themselves.

With regard to rights of access to land and resources, we seek to give meaning to those rights by means of treaties negotiated on a government-to-government basis. Accepting aboriginal people as equals at the table is a key to replacing the courtroom clash with mutually beneficial agreements.

We believe that negotiation is preferable to litigation as a means of redress because it recognizes the equality of the parties and permits the expression of interests in common. In our view -- one shared by the majority of first nations -- litigation is counterproductive; it polarizes issues and forces the parties into adversarial relationships. The task force report underscored this very point when it said:

"First nations have been forceful in their demands for the peaceful political resolution of the land question. The public and the courts have made it clear that the matters in contention are properly resolved politically, not by confrontation or violence, and not by resorting to the legal process."

Some view the trial court decision in the Delgam Uukw case as going the government's way and vindicating the government's side. However, that decision does nothing to solve the problems of social dislocation visited on aboriginal communities, and it only worsens their sense of injustice at the hands of non-aboriginal society. The reconciliation we seek on behalf of all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, cannot be achieved by means of a legal judgment. Our objective is to negotiate the substance of these rights on a face-to-face basis.

Treaty-making is a method of reaching an agreement that has the potential to be accepted by both parties, thereby rendering stable and lasting accords. It is the way that aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples have historically arrived at agreements on issues of jurisdiction and rights. By negotiating, both parties can reach a middle ground that establishes fundamentals, addresses injustices and secures a basis for cooperation 

[ Page 942 ]

and sharing. Unlike a court decision -- even if it fashions a middle ground, it's never as workable as when arrived at voluntarily, and is often subject to appeal -- a negotiated agreement has the support of all parties. This removes the threat of instability that hangs over a court decision. Of course, negotiation is not an easy answer. It requires goodwill, compromise and consensus, and none of us will get everything we seek. But it is my conviction that privileging negotiation as a vehicle for reconciliation will put us on the road to a new social order, one in which first nations and other British Columbians will live side by side in a climate of tolerance, understanding and self-respect.

We not only believe that this is the right thing to do, we also see that it offers the prospect of a major social dividend to all parties -- that it can produce a "win" for everyone. When one realizes the vast resources spent on band-aid social programs to ameliorate the effects of disempowerment and dislocation of aboriginal peoples, when one recognizes the massive scale of deferred investment attributable to investor insecurity over unresolved questions of land and resources, when one notes the wasted possibilities for aboriginal communities to shape their own economic destiny and express their cultural richness, and when one imagines the inspiring prospect of an end to the indignity and injustice foisted upon aboriginal peoples and to the burden of shame shouldered by non-aboriginal peoples, then one begins to glimpse the scope of the social dividend that stems from a positive resolution of these differences.

In the coming year my ministry will develop new opportunities to negotiate treaties within the overall framework recommended by the B.C. Claims Task Force. Foremost is the creation of a B.C. treaty commission to oversee and facilitate that negotiation process. We are allocating substantial funds to gear up for the negotiating process because we are determined to go to the table well prepared and supported by the best resources, in order to fulfil our responsibilities vis-�-vis non-aboriginal interests and to reach agreements based on sound and considered judgments. In the spirit of the task force recommendations, this budget reflects the need for a sustained public information and consultation program so that British Columbians know what is happening and have the opportunity to influence the process. It will provide resources to expand and refine the previous government's third-party consultation process, and it provides additional resources for detailed research and for the development of negotiating teams and comprehensive positions -- all of which, we have learned from experience with the Nisga'a negotiation, are essential if we are to produce worthy results.

[3:00]

In the period before treaty negotiations begin, we will develop a process to ensure that government and first nations can work together in stewarding resources and to provide support for specific aboriginal initiatives. We are developing a policy framework that will provide for joint stewardship arrangements. These may include consultation, cooperative planning and comanagement of resources, and cooperation in resource development. In this way we will reinforce our commitment to recognize aboriginal interests in land use decisions affecting their territories.

We will also provide support for specific aboriginal initiatives, as part of our commitment to improving social conditions and economic self-sufficiency for aboriginal communities. For example, we have allocated funds to assist in coordinating measures to address the incidence of family violence in aboriginal communities.

As I noted earlier, meaningful involvement of third parties will be a decisive aspect of the treaty-making process. It is our belief that if treaties are to gain wide public acceptance, it is essential that those with a vested interest in the procedure are kept informed and involved. While we have accepted the task force recommendation that non-aboriginal interests be represented at the table by the federal and provincial governments, we also recognize that governments face a major challenge in representing the full range of those interests. Consequently, we will expand third-party consultations in order to ensure that all interests are carefully considered.

The B.C. Claims Task Force identified public awareness of the treaty negotiation process as a condition for success. It recommended extensive public information programs be undertaken on a tripartite basis, and that all groups participate in the development of resource materials for use in schools and by the public. This budget allocates additional funds for communications and public consultation activities that will facilitate public awareness and involvement in the process.

While treaty organizations comprise a major part of my ministry's mandate, we also work on behalf of aboriginal peoples in other ways. Preservation of aboriginal culture is supported by the first peoples' heritage, language and culture grant program, which provides funding for preservation of the 27 aboriginal language groups in B.C. Economic development on behalf of self-sufficiency is promoted by the First Citizens' Fund, which offers a loan guarantee program to aboriginal business people. This fund also supports the programs of friendship centres, which offer services to off-reserve, urban aboriginal peoples. In addition, the fund contributes to the post-secondary education of aboriginal students through a bursary program. The First Citizens' Fund has enjoyed tremendous success, and we have increased its allocation to $3.42 million this year.

We believe that support for aboriginal business development is not only good social policy, it's good economic policy as well. In January we shared in the achievement of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation as they repaid in full $1.32 million in loans that had been provided to them in the 1970s -- a payback to the government. This corporation is a thriving business venture with prospects for continued growth and creation of needed employment. Investments in aboriginal self-sufficiency bring economic benefits to all British Columbians.

Another important part of my ministry's mandate is advocacy on behalf of aboriginal peoples. Our goal is to raise the profile of aboriginal issues within all government ministries and to ensure that aboriginal interests 

[ Page 943 ]

are articulated and considered in government initiatives. We also act as the provincial voice for aboriginal people in federal discussions and undertakings. This work involves close consultation with aboriginal peoples and with all government agencies whose programs affect aboriginal peoples.

In closing, let me say that I am indeed proud of the steps that we have taken to recognize our obligations to aboriginal peoples, and that I'm anxious to get on with the task of advancing the treaty negotiating process as the means for reaching agreements. I'm convinced that by recognizing the right of aboriginal peoples to come to the table as equals, we have opened the door to possibilities of reconciliation that would forever be denied us were we to continue to rely on the decisions of the court. Willingness to negotiate is a tangible symbol of our desire for a new social order based on cooperation and mutual trust, and I am optimistic that in the year ahead we will make significant progress towards that end.

I might just say before I sit down and invite questions that I have with me some staff today, and I'd be pleased to introduce the staff who are here from my ministry so that members can be acquainted with them, if you're not already. Sitting next to me is Mr. Doug McArthur, who is deputy minister. Seated behind me, to my left, is Judy Birch, who is acting executive director of communications and public consultation. Seated directly behind me -- those of you who were there for the late-night sitting will remember him from the early hours -- is Scott Browning, manager of finance and administration. Seated to my right, behind me, is Gary Youngman, director of self-government and negotiations. I'd be very happy to entertain any questions that members may have.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, just before we get into detailed discussion, I think that one of the frustrations that I have found with respect to the critic role for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is the difficulty that there seems to be in getting a handle on a lot of the program expenditures that affect aboriginal people in British Columbia. They seem to be administered from a variety of ministries, and therefore in the estimates on Education, it was necessary to pull out material on that. On the estimates relating to Social Services yesterday, I was attempting to try and get a handle on some of the questions there, and the same with the Attorney General with respect to matters in justice.

It is clear within this ministry that much of the work is coordinating the broader delivery of service to aboriginal people, rather than a direct advocacy role. In approaching these estimates, and in order to give the minister and the minister's staff some guidelines as to how I'd like to proceed on this matter so that they can follow where I'm going, I would like to deal primarily with vote 8 and try to get that out of the way. I don't think that there's much to be said there in terms of the actual total expenditures. To move more specifically to Aboriginal Affairs programs and look fairly directly at the moneys committed to that, given that there is a substantial lift in expenditure from last year to this year, we'd like to explore that; then move from there into treaty negotiation, where we can start to look at the dollar value committed there. In particular -- and I provide some advance notice -- we would like to look at the amount actually going into the administration of this kind of work as opposed to that actually going into the detail of negotiation, and see if we can't break out some of that material.

So having said that, I think that other members will be wanting to ask questions, and I am prepared on occasion to yield to allow a variety of questions so that the minister doesn't find listening to me the whole time too tedious a process.

If we could come to vote 8 now, I wonder if the minister might want to just give a general breakdown of the operation of the minister's office in terms of the expenditures of dollars. I note that there is a modest increase this year -- a somewhat modest increase. Could the minister break out exactly what the staffing component is, the responsibilities of that staff, whether or not there is staff outside the general precincts of Victoria, and, if so, what the functions and roles of each of those staff members are?

Hon. A. Petter: The first point I would make is that, while there seems to be an increase from blue book to blue book, in fact there hasn't been an increase, because the amount that increased in this year's blue book was an increase that was made last year. As I understand it, it is an adjustment for administrative assistants' salaries. So the basic level of expenditure this year is that same as last year, and there's been no increase in actual terms.

In terms of the organization of my office, the staffing levels are the same as those of the office that I inherited. There's myself as minister; an executive assistant, Alice Carson, who services the constituency principally, and deals also with Provincial Capital Commission matters; a ministerial assistant, Ally McKay, who is responsible for ministry matters and Aboriginal Affairs matters; an administrative assistant, Barb Robson; and then two and a half support staff, as it were.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could just come back. I wasn't quite clear when you said that there appears to be an increase from blue book to blue book. There does appear to be a modest increase. I don't want to get hung up on this, because it's not that significant a dollar value, but I wonder if you could explain again why there is no increase if indeed the dollar figure appears to be increased.

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that there is an increase, as you say, but it is the product of a decision made by the previous government to increase administrative assistants' salaries. That's now being carried over into these estimates.

G. Wilson: Okay. It's not your fault, is what you're saying. I understand that.

Hon. A. Petter: I take no credit, either.

[ Page 944 ]

G. Wilson: However, we would like to look at that question.

I wonder if we could move on to perhaps the more substantive questions within the ministry, particularly matters around ministry operations. There has been a substantial increase in the dollar figure committed to Aboriginal Affairs programs, and I wonder if the minister could first of all outline the philosophy of the ministry with respect to the provision of dollars for the programs under his jurisdiction; and if in doing that, the minister might like to outline for us in this committee the priorities, and why they've arrived at those priorities in terms of the expenditures -- not only the additional money, but whether there's been any reallocation of dollars from last year's commitments.

Hon. A. Petter: It's a very sweeping question. Excuse me while I'm still fumbling through the tabs in my briefing book to find the information. I believe the Leader of the Opposition was correct when he said that the function of this ministry is not principally program delivery. There are a couple of important programs within the ministry, such as the First Citizens' Fund -- administered through the ministry -- and the heritage language program.

The principal role of the ministry is one that relates in two directions. One I will call the outward direction -- that of treaty negotiations and relations with aboriginal people, representing the government and the people's interest with respect to aboriginal peoples. The other I see as a more inward direction; that is, representing very much the concerns of aboriginal people within the government. I think we see, within my budget and some of the increases, both aspects of that and enhancements on both sides.

I think it's fair to say that much of the lift is as a result of our commitment to start negotiations. We have, as you're aware, accepted the report of the task force. We are in the process of finalizing agreement on the establishment of the treaty commission. I'm very hopeful that agreement can be finalized within the next month, and that will oblige us to participate in the creation of the treaty commission. That entails some expenditure. More importantly, it obliges us to be ready to sit down and start negotiating with first nations which are prepared and ready to negotiate perhaps as soon as four, five or six months from now.

[3:15]

While there was one negotiation going on when I became minister -- the Nisga'a negotiation -- there was not a real structure within the ministry to deal largely with negotiations. It was, rather, a structure that had been drawn together from various components of the ministry. We decided that in order to respond to the treaty commission and be ready to negotiate, we had to set up a structure of negotiating teams under the direction of a chief negotiator. We had to be ready to go to the negotiating table and start to draw together the information we need -- the background, the data -- in order to make those negotiations meaningful, and also to make sure that the interests of all British Columbians were protected.

Much of the budgetary allocation is directed toward a lift on the treaty negotiation side, in terms of creating three negotiating teams under the direction of a chief negotiator and funding our share of the treaty commission. In addition to that, on the other side of the ministry -- and it's sort of hard to divide these up too clearly -- which is the side that is dealing with encouraging other parts of government to respond to aboriginal peoples, to try to bring about better response from government to the concerns of aboriginal peoples, there have been a number of new allocations as well.

On the side of self-government, self-government arrangements are those which may be arrived at through the treaty negotiation process, but they may just as well be arrived at in other ways. Therefore there is a separate component of the budget directed toward preparing for self-government negotiations and starting to do some of the work to promote a move toward greater autonomy and self-sufficiency on the part of aboriginal peoples. So we have some increase in staff, support and research directed at producing arrangements that will give greater autonomy to aboriginal peoples, including funding for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and mediation.

I must say that I am pleased to hear that the Leader of the Opposition has had some difficulty getting a handle on all the other aspects of government that deal with aboriginal peoples, because I've been having the same difficulty and wouldn't pretend that I've overcome it. It's quite a daunting task.

Part of my ministry's increase is to give us greater capacity on the natural resource side and on the social policy side, to provide research and policy direction to line ministries to encourage them to enhance their programs in a way that better respects and services the needs of aboriginal peoples.

There are increases with respect to public education and consultation, which, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, relate very much to our commitment to negotiate. One of the central recommendations of the task force report, in addition to the commitment to create the commission, was that if this is to succeed, the general public has to be aware of what is going on and has to have opportunities both for input and to be informed on issues that are of concern to them. It's certainly not this government's intention to enter into treaty negotiations behind closed doors. We want to make sure the general public is well aware of what's going on, and that information can be shared to the greatest extent possible. Therefore a component of the budget is directed at both providing information and engaging in consultation -- third-party consultations and community consultations.

Right now the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware that there is a third-party consultation group operating. It's quite a successful group, and I give credit to the former government for having established it. It tends to represent provincial interests that speak for the whole province. As we move into particular negotiations in particular sections of the province, there will be a need to engage in localized consultation, to take account of the particular needs and concerns of people within those areas. It becomes important to expand the 

[ Page 945 ]

consultation to incorporate those regional and local interests as well.

There is also an increase in the First Citizens' Fund within the overall budget, which I mentioned in my opening remarks. This is to provide greater opportunities to aboriginal businesses, for the student bursary program and for native friendship centres.

There is a continuation of our commitment to the first people's heritage, language, and culture program. Part of that continuation shows up as an increase in this ministry's budget of $1 million, but that is because it was reallocated, in a sense, from the lotteries branch -- the capital grants of the heritage language program had, under the previous government's regime, come out of lotteries. As part of the reorganization of government and reorganization of the lotteries program, that $1 million was transferred over to my ministry to administer along with the rest of the program.

I think I've hit most of the high points, but I'd be happy to provide any detail or additional information.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for giving me the general overview. The last point was something I've made a note of. It was something I was going to ask later on down the road, but since it has come up I'll ask now. With respect to that $1 million and the lotteries transfer, where in your line does that $1 million fit in the budget? Does that sit within line for Aboriginal Affairs programs for the budget? Is the $1 million the only lotteries money that now goes to the discretion of this ministry? Is that $1 million the only lotteries money that comes in, or are there additional discretionary funds the minister has?

Hon. A. Petter: The $1 million shows up under the line "Aboriginal Affairs Programs." It is the only lottery money that has found its way into my ministry. I want to be absolutely precise -- as precise as I can, in any event -- in answering the Leader of the Opposition's question. He said: "...or under discretionary funds." There is a minister's discretionary fund for small grants and other things within the ministry, but that does not in any way come over from the lottery grants program.

G. Wilson: Thank you -- and I appreciate the distinction; I'm aware that there is a discretionary fund.

If we can start with the Aboriginal Affairs programs in terms of line expenditures, I wonder if the minister might walk me through this. Of the total expenditure increase, this is the area where there is, I think, the largest lift. One million dollars is obviously explained right off the top, if that is money coming in for the heritage fund on language. I wonder if we can start to walk through that and if there can be a description of each of these votes as we go through it.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I will clarify that, because I don't think I was clear. Rather than looking at the broad picture, can we not deal with treaty negotiations or the matter of the First Citizens' Fund or those expenditures...? Can we look strictly and specifically at Aboriginal Affairs programs and walk through those expenditures?

Hon. A. Petter: There was a reason I hesitated. I appreciate the clarification, but also there are a number of ways, I suppose, of slicing expenditures. The way that I find most meaningful is to describe them in terms of functions: what the money is going to and what it's going to do, as opposed to STOB votes or whatever. We can do it either way, but I will do it in terms of functions. It will really be an amplification, I think, of what I've already done. I can also do it with respect to changes or I can do it with respect to the total budget. What I prefer to do is focus in on those areas where there has been a lift or a change, if that is satisfactory. I'll start to do that anyway.

The areas which differ from last year's budget in terms of the overall Aboriginal Affairs programs are the following. In the component of self-government in negotiations, there has been an increase of four FTEs and allocation increases of $800,000. The reasons for that relate to a branch reorganization, staff travel, support for self-government negotiations, contributions for first nations for consultation and self-government arrangements, constitutional research and consultation -- because, of course, part of self-government does relate to what is happening at the constitutional table as well as other tables -- and also funding for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

The next area which is seen as a significant change in allocation is the natural resource and social policy issue areas I referred to earlier. There has been an addition of two full-time employees and an allocation of $476,000 for a research officer for social policy issues and a middle-level manager in research for natural resource issues. Those two positions are designed to enhance our ability both to get a grasp on what other ministries are doing and to direct other ministries in ways that will, hopefully, be beneficial to some of the goals that I have articulated with respect to my ministry's mandate. Also within that allocation, there is funding for joint stewardship and natural resource management and planning to provide funds to encourage arrangements whereby aboriginal peoples can better participate in natural resource management, comanagement agreements, and have a greater say over management decisions within their traditional territories.

The next is aboriginal family violence. This relates to an initiative out of the Ministry of Women's Equality dealing with family violence. My ministry has obtained an additional $91,000. It will not require a full-time employee; we'll be hiring someone on a short-term contract to coordinate an aboriginal working group for the government-wide initiative aimed at combating aboriginal family violence. My ministry is, in effect, lending a support person to coordinate aboriginal input into the government's family violence initiative, which falls under, as I understand it, the Ministry of Women's Equality.

Information management. There's been an increase of two full-time employees, and a $250,000 allocation for research and secretarial staff, economic modelling and evaluation, and GIS database systems development 

[ Page 946 ]

and usage costs. Much of this expenditure relates to the fact that if we are going to start engaging in negotiations, we need to have the capacity to evaluate the resource base that's at issue, to do the kind of economic modelling and natural resource inventory work that needs to be done. That means we have to retool our information management capacity within the ministry, and also, to access information from other ministries.

There's a further allocation of $710,000, with no full-time employees attached, for public education and consultation. This relates to the commitment flowing from the treaty commission to improve communication with the public as to what is going to be going on in terms of treaty negotiation, and to provide feedback from the public through third-party community consultation mechanisms. Within this there is an opportunity for contributions to first nations so they can engage in their own consultations. I have publicly expressed the hope that we could open up lines of communication directly between first nations and non-aboriginal peoples so as to create a climate of trust and mutual understanding at the community level that will support the negotiating process. Those are the major initiatives there: third-party consultation, public education and some contributions to first nations to engage in consultations and public education themselves.

First peoples' heritage, language and culture. I've already addressed that, and you suggested that you didn't want further information on that at this time.

In terms of the lifts within Aboriginal Affairs programs, those are the lifts. If you want to talk about expenditures that were already there, I'd be happy to do that as well.

G. Wilson: We may want to do that.

Before we do that, are there areas within the programs that have been talked about where you've changed priority and therefore reduced expenditure? Are there such areas, so we can get an idea as to what the priority shift is within this ministry?

[3:30]

Hon. A. Petter: The one item within the program side which is no longer an expenditure has to do with the Burns Lake project, because there was this payback of a loan. There had been subsequent ongoing support attached to that loan, and that terminated with the payback of the loan.

There has been a reorganization, and we're continuing to reorganize in a way that I think will be more efficient. One thing we've done, for example, is move a number of people who previously might have been counted as part of negotiations into Aboriginal Affairs programs, because we consider it to be a more efficient arrangement to have them there as part of the support team, rather than have the negotiating team separated out -- to create actual negotiating teams to deal with the negotiations and bring back into our programs the allocation people who are dealing with research and policy. Very often, what they're dealing with are issues that support negotiations but are also useful in terms of advancing information internally.

Those kinds of reorganizations that are taking place should effect greater efficiencies, and hopefully, a better utilization of money. Other than the Burns Lake example, I can't point to any particular program that we've cut or that has resulted in a particular reduction.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could -- again sticking strictly within the line Aboriginal Affairs programs -- look at the actual delivery of program services that your ministry is responsible for. I'm particularly interested in the proposition that may be available for aboriginal people with respect to assistance on the preparation of their legal case and whether or not your ministry is working directly with aboriginal people or tribal councils. To what extent does this ministry assist in that financially, and to what extent is that strictly maintained through the jurisdiction of the federal government?

Hon. A. Petter: It's been our position that both treaty negotiation costs of aboriginal peoples and litigation costs of aboriginal peoples with respect to these issues are the responsibility of the federal government. I know of no expenditures in my ministry that are devoted to assisting aboriginal peoples in preparing for litigation on these kinds of issues.

G. Wilson: That was what I thought. I'm pleased to have that clarified so we know where we stand. I wonder if that also applies to the proposition where aboriginal people may have litigation against third-party interests with respect to matters relating to -- to give you some specific examples -- the loss of income from shellfish habitat that's been destroyed through pollution and matters related to the Alcan development on the Nechako River. I'm thinking specifically of Chief Peter Quaw and the work that he's doing there. I wonder if there is any money set aside or if there is an intention to set aside any money to assist in any legal work that may be undertaken on behalf of aboriginal people there.

Hon. A. Petter: The answer with respect to legal work is that we provide no such money, and there's no money provided in this budget for that purpose. Just to give a complete answer, we do assist in terms of native participation in comanagement agreements, mediation processes, fund mediators, that kind of thing, but not in any form of litigation -- not in the past, to my knowledge, and not in this budget.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we might explore this in just a little bit more depth. With respect to the proposition, which has been so clearly articulated, that it's desirable to get negotiations out of the court -- the better to get into the process of negotiation and to deal with issues around land claims -- one of the more contentious issues is the matter of third-party involvement and the matter of protection of existing resources that may be in areas that are under dispute and in areas where resolution is expected in the near future. I wonder if the minister could elaborate a little bit more on how much money -- if there is any money -- is 

[ Page 947 ]

dedicated to assisting aboriginal people in the preparation of a case with specific reference to the maintenance of the resource base or the wealth of a resource that may be lost between now and the time any resolution is forthcoming.

Hon. A. Petter: In terms of legal costs -- and I think it's quite consistent with our desire not to have matters end up in the courts -- we have not provided and do not propose to provide any support. We view that as a federal responsibility. However, with respect to trying to effect joint stewardship arrangements, arrangements in which we can resolve some of these issues through negotiation, both inside and outside the context of treaty negotiation there is some new money in the budget, $274,000, to assist aboriginal peoples to participate in crafting or developing those kinds of arrangements. As I say, that's completely consistent with the direction we want to go in -- by providing some support to encourage aboriginal peoples to participate in a negotiating process that will lead to joint stewardship arrangements. Taking into account third-party interests rather than putting it into litigation, we think we're going to get much better value for our money and that the aboriginal peoples will get much better value for their money as well.

G. Wilson: So of the $274,000 -- I think I heard you correctly -- that is put together for that, how is that money applied, how do aboriginal people or bands access that money and what are the parameters on that money with respect to the kinds of application that it can be used for? Are we talking strictly about stewardship of primary extractive industry -- logging, fishing, mining -- or does it also include matters around joint sharing of waterways and the less tangible kinds of resources?

Hon. A. Petter: Of this particular expenditure, which comes under STOB 82, contributions.... Breaking out that $274,000, it is for issues of access and use of resources. It's part of our commitment to develop a joint stewardship policy. As the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware, there is a legal obligation flowing from both the Sparrow case and the Delgam Uukw case to engage in consultation with aboriginal peoples. We've said that we want to take that obligation and build it into a more coherent policy in cooperation with aboriginal peoples. We have committed ourselves to engage in a consultation process with aboriginal peoples to define how that program will work, so I can't give you the specifics about how the money is going to be accessed. Part of it is going to be consultation to determine that. The idea is to fulfil that obligation but go beyond that obligation and provide a forum in which aboriginal peoples can work with government and third parties to develop co-management and joint stewardship relationships, with respect to the allocation and use of resources.

G. Wilson: So that money then can be applied to those groups that are going to try to establish joint management with the Crown and/or with private business? For example, if they were to involve themselves in a negotiation around a co-management process on a private gravel extraction, would that money be available on a matter of aboriginal people signing a contract with a private gravel-extracting company?

Hon. A. Petter: I should point out that this allocation of my ministry is one source of funds. We also hope to access, and have accessed, funds in other ministries that deal specifically with the resources themselves. For example, right now where there's a change in a resource policy plan for a particular region, because there is a legal obligation -- the resource ministry concern -- the government has the obligation to engage in consultation. I think the strict answer to what you're saying is: the money is there to consult and work out with government those arrangements, because the obligation is that of government.

Having said that, very often the change that's being proposed affects some private act or a private party. Part of the aboriginal concern may be to participate in some way in monitoring the way that party operates so as to protect environmental values, or to participate in the project in some way in order to gain a greater degree of economic self-sufficiency through that participation.

This process may well have implications for third parties. That is why I was careful to say that, while we will be engaging in these kinds of arrangements with first nations, and these funds are there to assist first nations to participate, we are also mindful -- not only my ministry, but the line ministries that deal with these matters -- that the third-party interest concerned must be involved. Indeed, they may become part of the ultimate solution of comanagement, or of developing whatever project is being proposed, whether it's.... I won't give the specifics in my imagination -- whatever the project is that's proposed.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could maybe look at some specifics, because I'm trying to get a better handle on exactly how this money can be accessed and what it can be used for. I appreciate that that's up for negotiation; nevertheless, there must be parameters within the ministry as to what is allowed and what isn't. I would assume there are some kind of policies in place.

If we're dealing with a primary extractive resource or resource use, would there be a proposition whereby waterways or watercourses that have traditionally been used for fishing or irrigation or for whatever other reason, resources that are now potentially under contamination as a result of industrial activity or other activities that may regulate flow.... Damming of a river for hydroelectric potential is an example of that. If that is indeed a resource, if it has been used traditionally for that, and if there was to be a co-management arrangement with a private licence on the river, would aboriginal people be able to access this money to use in the process of negotiating some kind of joint use? If that's true, to what extent then could there be some proposition for compensation on that? I realize that's a separate question, and we can deal with that separately if we want.

[ Page 948 ]

Hon. A. Petter: A couple of points of clarification that I think are responsive to the questions. We're moving from a position that we inherited in which there was this legal obligation -- fiduciary obligation -- flowing from these cases to a situation in which we're going to be, over the next number of months, trying to develop a more coherent policy. The situation we inherited is one in which, as a resource allocation decision is made that is seen as potentially engaging the fiduciary obligation, we have an obligation on an ad hoc basis to engage in some consultation. That's the way it's essentially been operating up until now. What we're trying to do is to regularize that through a joint stewardship policy. That policy must be developed, and it will be developed over the next number of months. If there doesn't seem to be a coherent policy yet, the reason is that it's still being developed.

The purpose of these funds is not to provide any compensation. It is to enable first nations -- aboriginal peoples -- to participate in discussions and evaluations to help them arrive at decisions about co-management. It's very often the case, for example, that a company has a proposal where they want to come into an area, which will result in the use of a resource, that the company has the resources to evaluate the environmental, socioeconomic and the other impacts, and the government may have those resources, but the aboriginal peoples do not. To fulfil even the minimal legal obligation that is now there, some resources must be provided to the aboriginal people so that they can at least evaluate the information that's provided to them by the other parties, and perhaps in some cases where that information itself is contentious, engage in some of their own research. That's essentially what this kind of money is for.

[3:45]

Now the other element of the question -- I hope I've caught them all -- had to do with waterways. I certainly think there's nothing to preclude the application of this to waterways and concerns about contamination of waterways. I would just say this: that this government is very mindful, whenever we're in an area of jurisdiction that potentially engages federal regulatory authority -- and waterways do, because of fisheries and other jurisdictions -- that we do not wish to make our contributions to the process simply result in savings to the federal government and benefit only the federal government and not aboriginal peoples. Where we're dealing with waterways, I think it's certainly feasible that this money would be available, but we will be very careful to ensure that the federal government contributed to the same process in a proportion consistent with its constitutional obligations. I don't think it benefits the province or aboriginal peoples for us to put a dollar in, only for the federal government to take a dollar out. Subject to that qualification, I don't see why this would not apply to waterways.

G. Wilson: Let me take this one step on a lateral. There is also an obligation and a responsibility for non-aboriginal people who have current licences for use of resources underway, and I wonder to what extent this is likely to be walking this ministry into a potential conflict with other line ministries that are responsible for licensing and maintaining of resources. Let me just ask that first, and then I'm going to come back and expand on that one more step if you don't see a problem there.

A. Petter: Two points. First, this funding in my ministry -- as I said before -- is meant to augment funding that will hopefully come out of the line ministries. We are not trying to do anything independent of or separate from the line ministries. Where there's a resource allocation decision to be made, the line ministry concerned will be the primary actor representing the government's interest, not my ministry. But there is an obligation upon government as a whole, and through government to that particular ministry, to take account of aboriginal interests. That means that that ministry may be working in conjunction with my ministry to try to figure out how best to meet that legal obligation and, as we develop a joint stewardship policy, how to do that through this policy.

There's no attempt here to set up a parallel process or to do something that would not be consistent with the work of line ministries. All the regular procedures of line ministries and their protection of other interests is a given. This is simply to try to provide some additional funds to enable aboriginal people to participate in the activities of those line ministries as they go about making various decisions concerning resource allocation or reallocation.

I just say finally, in response to your comments and concerns about conflicts, that the very purpose of this policy is to ameliorate conflicts and to anticipate possible conflicts by getting aboriginal peoples to have an opportunity to participate in the decisions when they're made, and not have to react afterward, so that the investors, if it's a new project, can be aware of the concerns, make the necessary adjustments and be sure that there is aboriginal support or at least be aware of what the aboriginal concerns are. The whole idea here is to stabilize relations and to ameliorate conflict, not to enhance conflict.

G. Wilson: If I could use a specific example, I come back to the question of the Nechako River and the Alcan project and the environmental impact work that has currently been undertaken that seems to, at least from the information I am receiving from the aboriginal peoples that feel their position is affected.... They do not believe the environmental work being done looks at some of the issues with respect to the shared resource questions that they find important to their people, namely the fishing that they've traditionally done and the volume of water supply that's available to them. Is this the kind of allocation of dollars that would be available if, for example, Chief Quaw was to decide that there would be an application for some assistance to study environmental impact from an aboriginal perspective?

A. Petter: I'm afraid I can't give you a precise answer, because I don't know whether the Ministry of Environment has engaged in any process with the 

[ Page 949 ]

aboriginal peoples, and I'm not aware enough of the specifics of the situation. I know the generalities of it. I am aware there is a court case now on the application of the federal environmental impact review, and that of course is relevant to this. I'm also aware that in this particular case, there was an agreement reached some years ago which is also relevant. It's a situation which has a number of peculiarities to it, and perhaps the questions could be best addressed to the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Energy. I don't want to specify an answer in terms of that particular project, because I simply don't have the information available.

In other projects where there has been a proposed development, a new development in particular, and aboriginal peoples have wanted to participate in some way in evaluating that development for environmental impact, line ministries have provided funds to aboriginal peoples to do that. This allocation in my ministry's budget is to help enhance that capacity and to encourage line ministries to engage in that process further and to develop a more coherent policy of joint stewardship and consultation.

G. Wilson: I wonder then if we could perhaps move on to a related issue. It has to do with the question of the preparation of negotiation on sharing of resources. To what extent is the ministry going to be dedicating dollars on a claim-specific basis to the proposition of resource-shared agreements that may in fact be part of a new self-government proposal or a proposal for resolution of a comprehensive claim?

Hon. A. Petter: If I understand the question, when you talk of claim-specific.... There is no allocation in this budget for settlement costs of treaty negotiations. As optimistic as I am about our capacity, I don't envisage that we will be reaching a treaty settlement in this fiscal year. If your question is directed, as I understood it to be, specifically to treaty negotiations and the settlements that would come out of those negotiations, the answer is that there are no funds in this budget for that purpose.

G. Wilson: I'm aware of that, because certainly the bottom-line figure here would be somewhat short of what would be expected, if indeed it is in there. You made reference to the GIS program being able to do adequate inventory work, map preparation and detail work. I think it is commendable that we are moving that way so that the ministry can be properly and adequately prepared.

What I was more interested in in this particular question is the extent to which the ministry is providing assistance -- maybe this is more of a philosophical question -- in advancing the notion that part of the resolution of some of the comprehensive claims will be some kind of future shared-resource negotiation. My question is: to what extent is preparatory work being done now in which this ministry is working directly with aboriginal people and providing assistance to aboriginal people, in order to coordinate the inventory or the resource that may ultimately be a part of such a settlement?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'll break out two aspects of the question. We are devoting funds from this year's ministry budget to do, as you suggest, some of the mapping and information-gathering, both within our own ministry and also drawing on other ministries, to prepare ourselves for negotiations. The activities that first nations may want to engage in, and have engaged in, to prepare themselves for negotiations have been viewed by the previous government and by this government as a negotiating cost, the responsibility for which should be borne by the federal government.

G. Wilson: I understand, then, that there is no mechanism in place whereby some method of -- I'm reluctant to use the word "prenegotiation" -- inventory is being compiled, where at least there is some understanding of the baseline value of resources that may be the subject of negotiation. The reason I ask the question is that there is some considerable dispute with respect to the actual value of inventory loss, which is something that is obviously going to be part of the negotiation. Also, there is considerable dispute in some of the claims before this government, or that will be coming before this government, with respect to the potential value of inventory that will be a future subject for that negotiation. Without that baseline, how is it possible for us all to be negotiating with the same level of expectation?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I want to answer at a number of levels. I will reiterate that internally we are starting to do some of the work of gathering information to prepare ourselves for negotiations. I must say that we are going to have to work very quickly, because the information may be there, but it certainly hasn't been assembled and drawn together -- and in some cases it may not even be there.

As for the first nations' access to information, some of the work we do may, of course, be presented at the negotiating table and would be available to first nations in that way. To the extent that first nations wish to engage in their own research, that is a negotiating cost which they can look to the federal government for.

The other thing I'm aware of -- but it should perhaps be directed to another minister -- is that one of the benefits of CORE to the province as a whole, to aboriginal peoples and to this process is that CORE is doing inventory work on its own which presumably will be available to people of the province generally and will provide something of the kind of base that you're talking about. That work is not specifically directed to the negotiating process. It may be of benefit to all parties engaged in that process, and hopefully will be.

G. Wilson: That does indeed answer that question. If I can move one step further.... Again, we're talking with respect to the approach: negotiation, as opposed to litigation. I know that is something that is desired by the government. Of course, it's going to take all parties to agree, and it's not necessarily a fait accompli, as I'm sure the minister would agree -- especially in light of the fact that there is an appeal currently underway.

[ Page 950 ]

I wonder if the minister can tell us more specifically -- and I don't want to get into too detailed a philosophical debate but rather keep it tied to what we're attempting to work out here -- about the proposition of the political legitimacy of title. I believe I've quoted the minister correctly when he says that it can be interchanged with aboriginal rights. Can the minister tell us whether or not he believes that the political legitimacy of title runs with the individual -- and therefore would be a subject cost that his ministry will have to look at for on-reserve and off-reserve aboriginal people -- or does that run with the land and is therefore subject to whatever land negotiation is concluded?

[4:00]

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to respond to the different elements that I heard in the question. First of all, with respect to negotiations and the desire to negotiate on the part of first nations, I would point out that the task force report, which strongly recommends negotiation over litigation, was endorsed by the First Nations Summit, which has very broad support from first nations throughout the province -- not unanimous support, as I'm sure is appreciated. There is a broadly held view on the part of first nations, even first nations that have decided over the years to go to court, that negotiation must be pursued. I don't have much doubt that there is a will to negotiate on the part of first nations, and I just wanted to make that point.

With respect to the question of aboriginal title and aboriginal rights, I appreciate the opportunity to answer that. One gets into very complex terrain whenever one talks about rights, because in our society we talk about rights in a number of different senses. We talk about rights in a political sense. People have a right to education. It doesn't mean we expect to see it in law. Indeed the Charter of Rights doesn't provide a right to education. It provides certain rights attendant to education, but not a right to education -- but we still talk freely of a right to education. So at one level we are talking about political rights, such as rights to equality, rights to education, rights to aboriginal title; but at another level we are drawn into talking about rights as legal rights. We get into court cases. People ask questions: "What does this argument mean?" and "What does that mean?"" Very often the arguments that are made in court about the definition of a right will be somewhat different.

Let me put this in a somewhat different way. What we recognize as a right in law may not be the whole thing that we recognize as a right politically, and I go back to my example about a right to education. Simply because the Charter doesn't provide a right to education doesn't mean that there isn't such a right. Just because a government were to argue in court that there were no rights to education in law doesn't mean that as a political matter it wouldn't be committed to that right and want to see that right protected through the various means available to it. I think it's really important for us to try to maintain the understanding that rights have this double meaning.

Aboriginal title has been used in both senses. Initially when I made the statement, I spoke about inherent rights of aboriginal peoples that did not flow from our legal system -- political rights, rights to title, rights to self-government. More recently, because we've been discussing the Gitksan case and the Delgam Uukw factum, we've been talking about legal rights and, in that context, have made some statements about our legal position. Some of the terminology is the same, so it really does get confusing.

With respect to the specific question on aboriginal title, my understanding of the court's definition of aboriginal title -- and to this extent I must say that my use of the term has been consistent, at least in this one respect, in both its legal and political sense -- is that aboriginal title is a collective right, a right of first nations. I think you'll find that the courts in their definition have taken that view. That's one of the reasons it's not a proprietary right in our traditional sense. So the answer on aboriginal title is that that right is viewed very much as a collective right of first nations -- referring to rights of access to traditional lands and resources corresponding to traditional territories and traditional activities but not confined to the traditional exercise of those activities in the traditional way of -- modern equivalents and those kinds of things, as the Sparrow decision discussed.

There are other rights -- inherent rights of self-government -- that may apply to aboriginal peoples both on and off the land base. We can talk about that if you're interested in exploring that opportunity. But I think aboriginal title, at least in the terms that I've used and, I understand, that the courts have used, does refer to the relationship between a peoples and their traditional territories and the historic rights to use and occupancy that they enjoy as aboriginal peoples. It still continues, in its modern form, yet to be fully defined by the courts or through the negotiating process.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get into a debate at this stage on that matter, although it's difficult not to. We'll come back to this question of rights and title, because it is a very important issue to have clarified, especially with the recognition of the political legitimacy of title and the definition of it.

If I could come back more specifically to the question that I raised, it has to do with aboriginal people off reserve -- people who are generally living in urban areas -- and the extent to which negotiation is in place, assuming that we have an opportunity to successfully conclude one of the negotiations within the task force. The minister will be aware that the Liberal opposition has endorsed the task force. We think it's an excellent first step to getting things up and on the road. In the event that we are able to successfully conclude this, what is the minister's view of title and the provisions that that title provides in whatever subsequent self-government may come? For the individual who may have lived in an area that was under negotiation and who now lives off the reserve, once negotiations have been successfully concluded, does title run with the individual? Is there going to be some provision of rights to that individual that may be subject to the laws of British Columbia and that will have a cost impact on a budget in subsequent years, or does it run strictly with the area 

[ Page 951 ]

in which that negotiation is concluded? That's point one. Number two, what is the minister's view with respect to membership in the group that is negotiated? To what extent does that have a cost impact on the way that we start to deal with that negotiation?

Hon. A. Petter: In conversations with the Leader of the Opposition, I've said that I think the term "title" is a lesser, not greater, term than "rights." One of the reasons is that my understanding of aboriginal title, as it has been used by the courts and as I and others have used it, is that it's a right that runs with the land; it is a right of those who occupy that land. The extent to which it's an individual right or a collective right will depend very much on the structure of the first nation and its form of government. I guess that's the ultimate answer. That makes it a collective right in the sense that we look to the first nation to determine what those rights are. I've quoted various cases in the House that talk about how Indian title is used by the courts. I can share those quotes again, if you want.

Another kind of aboriginal right that does not necessarily run with the land is the right of self-government, or self-determination. Off-reserve aboriginal peoples have made it clear in the current constitutional round that they are looking for the protection of their right to self-determination. That may not necessarily be tied to the land and to that relationship that is used in the context of the term "aboriginal title." Therefore there may well be opportunities to negotiate self-government agreements of some form or another -- presumably of a rather different form than those associated with a land base -- for aboriginal peoples who live off of a particular historical land base.

G. Wilson: Is it fair to say in the approach to the resolution of these questions that settlement of a comprehensive claim that recognizes title...? Given that we are able to settle that, given whatever compensation package is negotiated and given that there is a self-government model that is acceptable to the governments of British Columbia and Canada and to the aboriginal people, will people of the same tribal ancestry who live off-reserve, in urban centres under municipal jurisdiction -- the city of Vancouver, for example -- be able to independently negotiate a separate agreement on the matter of self-government?

Hon. A. Petter: You've identified one of the really difficult problems in the question of self-government. It's true that some citizens who have first nation status according to the federal government and who are off-reserve identify themselves very much back to their land base; others less so. Others, of course, are without status. If we are serious about generally recognizing the aboriginal people's right of self-determination, we're going to have to be open to the possibility that there may be citizens off-reserve who define their right to self-determination independent of the land base, and there may be others who do otherwise.

Ultimately that's going to be the decision of aboriginal peoples themselves. We're going to have to be able to respond and negotiate based on the aboriginal people's own understanding of their society today, these many years after contact. Otherwise we would be saying on the one hand that we respect their right of self-determination, and on the other hand we'd be trying to tell them what their societies are. I can't see how that inconsistency can be reconciled except by saying that ultimately there must be room for aboriginal peoples to define their own societies, cultures and forms of government, and for us to then negotiate, based on their understanding, arrangements that would be acceptable to the citizens of the province as a whole, taking into account third-party interests and certain aspects of government policy and public policy that we will insist upon as part of any negotiation.

G. Wilson: This is becoming very illuminating in terms of how the minister approaches the subject. It is a complex subject. The minister referred to the matter of non-status, and that was my next question. Given that there is a provision for the right to self-determination and, if I'm hearing the minister correctly, that he is suggesting that the right to self-determination is something that is going to be part of an ongoing negotiation with respect to the type of self-government that may be put in place, either on-reserve or off-reserve.... Given that we now have another subcategory, if you want, of people that will be in that negotiating process -- non-status aboriginal people -- we're developing a highly complex set of negotiations, where a variety of rights may be attributed to a variety of people, based on definitions that may be determined purely and simply by the groups themselves. I wonder how the minister feels that that complexity is going to be adequately managed or dealt with within the general provisions of the laws of the province of British Columbia or the laws of Canada.

In that question, I would refer to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the minister referred to, which essentially talks about equality among Canadians. Within the definition of self-determination, certainly I would argue that I as a citizen of Canada have the right to self-determination within the laws of Canada and under the provisions outlined in the constitution and in the Charter. But what I'm hearing the minister say is that there is going to be a series of different charters, if I can use that term, that might be applied under different categories or groups that would be subject to the determination of those groups themselves. If that's so, I'd really be interested in knowing how the minister sees the overall administration of things like justice, taxation, social program delivery, education, health care -- all of those things that are going to have to flow from that very complex model he's spelling out.

Hon. A. Petter: I wish it were simpler. The model I may be "spelling out" -- if by that you mean in the sense of describing; it's not one I'm prescribing -- is the reality that's out there. If you look at the constitutional negotiations at the federal level right now, there are four aboriginal groups involved: Metis, non-status -- including some off-reserve, and an organization that spans both of those to some extent -- first nations and 

[ Page 952 ]

Inuit. They are all at the table for the very reasons that you articulate.

[4:15]

Now if you want to get into a philosophical debate about how we reconcile the principle of equality with the principle of self-determination, I'd love to. It's one of my favourite topics. I'll give you a shorthand of how I do it. I think it's one of the real dilemmas of a pluralistic society: that tension in all contexts. The Charter of Rights protects the principle of equality. The Constitution Act, 1982, which contains the Charter of Rights in section 35 -- technically outside the Charter -- also recognizes the rights of aboriginal peoples as particular rights. The division of powers has a separate category and land reserve for Indians.

How do we reconcile those inconsistencies? Well, to an extent we may not be able to; there may be tensions. But I guess the way I would reconcile it philosophically, if you want my philosophical answer, is this: what the right to equality really means is a right to self-determination within a set of cultural values and assumptions that are of the person's own choosing and that reflect the person's own cultural and social milieu.

So if we're saying that aboriginal peoples have not had the opportunity to thrive and to have self-determination and to be full-fledged citizens of Canada, within and coming from their own cultural experience, but the rest of us -- many of us, not all of us -- have had that opportunity, I think we can square the circle. We can say that what equality means is giving aboriginal peoples the same opportunities to participate as Canadians from the perspective of their own cultural values and traditions that we have as Canadians to participate from our cultural values and traditions. That's what's been denied, and that's what is really inequality right now.

Philosophically, I think we can reach an accommodation between those tensions. Once we do that we have to yield to the complexity that's out there. If we are meaningful in allowing people to define for themselves to some measure -- not to an ultimate measure, because society as a whole must have a say within Canada, as you said, and the government has an interest.... That's why we're negotiating. Third parties are concerned; that's why they have to be represented. But the position from which these peoples negotiate, which is designed to bring them to equality within their own cultural history and experience.... Surely they have to be the ones to define that for the purpose of negotiations. If we start defining it, then we're back into the very same problem that got us here. That's what the Indian Act did: it started defining who was an Indian and who wasn't, and who could be in and who could be out. That's why we are in the situation we are in today.

I wish I could wish away the complexity; I'd be a much happier minister if it weren't there. It is there. We have to grapple with it cheerfully, decently, not deny its existence and pretend it's going to be simple, and do our best.

G. Wilson: I would indeed enjoy an opportunity to have a full and exhaustive debate on that philosophical question. Suffice it to say that while those complexities are there and the diversities are clear, and while one has to argue that there has to be equal opportunity for aboriginal people to indeed enjoy that right of self-determination, it would also have to be pointed out that in the context of multicultural Canada as opposed to aboriginal Canada, we haven't done that, through a variety of jurisdictional divisions that give various levels of jurisdiction to various levels of cultural groups that have various ethnic, religious or linguistic differences. So one can get into a very difficult and complex discussion on that question.

What I'd like to come back to.... I know that the leader of the third party is here. I am prepared to yield him time this afternoon, given that I will have an opportunity to continue at a later date. What I'm really anxious not to do is to get into too much of a philosophical debate on how it's going to be done, because I am sure neither you nor I is going to have the final solution to it anyway.

To look at the administration of the programs that are going to have to be dealt with in a much more specific way, given that there is going to be this complexity of levels of self-government.... I wonder what the minister's view is with respect to the delivery of those kinds of programs, given that there will not be -- I think we can both agree -- a single model that will be applied and workable. Certainly from all of my discussions that would be true. If we are going to have this multi-level approach, how does one build into the expenditures of government -- which has to be done in a pretty systematic and a very fair manner...? How does the government approach that in a way that's equitable and fair?

A. Petter: Again, I can't map out the great future vision for the next ten years, but I can tell you that we have to move on cautiously but in a determined way, and on a number of different fronts. Part of that is taking place through the constitutional discussions, which will hopefully not only entrench some rights but perhaps put in place a process for starting to work out some of these issues around a negotiating table, in which all governments, first nations and other aboriginal peoples will be involved.

Bringing it down to the particular and to British Columbia, one thing I might say right off the top is that this government is determined that whatever we do and however we move will not be an excuse for the federal government to back away from its responsibilities. Let's not forget that the primary responsibility for aboriginal peoples belongs to the federal government. On the other hand, we will not be obstructionist; we want to be facilitative and helpful. I think we can talk about doing some pilot projects. We have provided some funding to URBAN, the umbrella organization in Vancouver, to engage in and continue their work in trying to deliver a variety of off-reserve services to aboriginal peoples. We will start to get into a negotiation process, which will give us a better sense of the aspirations of particular first nations, and then we will have to consult with the communities around those first nations, and with the community as a whole, and with you and others, to see whether or not the arrangements proposed are acceptable.

[ Page 953 ]

You can point to a number of different models that exist out there: the Sechelt model, the Yukon model, some of the Alaska models. It's going to be a gradual process, feeling our way, not doing anything precipitous, providing some incentives to groups that have shown initiative and want some pilot money, making sure along the way that the primary fiscal responsibility of the federal government is maintained, and that this has not become yet another enterprise in which the federal government offloads and everyone loses.

G. Wilson: Because I know that the leader of the third party does wish to get time in this afternoon, I would be prepared to yield to him and to reserve the right to come back and provide further questions at the next sitting.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to be here today to start debating the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. In some ways I envy the minister the opportunity that he has over the next few years. I trust it will be his opportunity over the next few years to deal with what is undoubtedly one of the most difficult and complex issues facing British Columbia today. It's an opportunity and a huge responsibility.

I'm a bit disappointed that we're having the debates on his estimates here as opposed to in the other committee, because I think that whether we'd like to admit it or not, a certain public awareness comes through televised debates. Given the minister's understanding of this issue, I think it would have been an interesting debate for British Columbians to watch firsthand. Many of us at least read, but the fact of the matter is that the readership of Hansard, I suspect, is somewhat limited, and people who will read it cover to cover are few in number. I guess the benefit is that we get to highlight the portions of debates that we particularly like and circulate those pages that we think best make our arguments, so perhaps we should be grateful for that.

We have the opportunity to resolve an issue that's been outstanding in British Columbia for at least 125 years, but probably much longer than that. As the government of the day moves toward resolution of land claims, you are going to find, as no doubt you already have, that there is considerable public support for the negotiated, as opposed to the litigated, resolution of land claims. That support comes from a number of areas. It comes from an understanding that there are longstanding injustices, that Indian people haven't had an opportunity to participate in the opportunities that most Canadians have come to take for granted. There's any range of statistics that the minister and I and many other people will understand and appreciate. Canadians and British Columbians are coming more and more to recognize that injustice. If Oka did one thing for British Columbians and for Canadians, it was to awaken them to the very real issues here.

I say there is broad support, because there is an understanding of the issues and the inequities. But I think we must also understand that there are people who have grave concerns about how these negotiations, settlements and resolutions will affect them as individuals. There is a disproportionate concern, and there will be a disproportionate impact on British Columbians, depending on where they live. The strongest support for the resolution of land claims exists in Victoria and Vancouver, and the least impact of the settlement of land claims will be felt in those communities. That is not to say that in the rest of British Columbia there isn't broad support for land claim resolutions, but there is a great deal more anxiety in communities like Hazelton and all through the interior about what kind of resolution will ultimately be negotiated.

A small part of the support that British Columbians have felt for the negotiations was when the government changed its position and agreed that it would start negotiating land claims. It established some principles and some basics on which the government would base its negotiations, understanding that there were to be negotiations and that there would obviously be some need to move. British Columbians have to understand the position that its government takes to the table -- and not only what it would like to see as the ultimate resolution. The ultimate Shangri-la is a fairly easy picture to paint, but what British Columbians have to know -- and, I would suggest, what they haven't heard from the new government so far -- are the positions that it intends to take forward in negotiations.

Maybe that would be a good place for us to start. I would be interested in knowing: when you're at the table -- as you are with the Nisga'a -- what positions do you start with? What arguments and issues do you take to the table?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: The question is pretty open-ended. What we're obviously trying to achieve through treaty negotiation is to reach some economically stable and socially just resolutions of longstanding issues. We bring some very well-defined principles to that, some of which are similar to the previous government's, certainly in terms of our commitment that private property is not to be negotiated -- it's not on the table -- and in our recognition that the provincial government does have a role at the table.

I'm sorry that the leader of the third party wasn't here for my opening remarks, because I did want to let him know that I did take the opportunity to credit the previous government for having made what I think was a very significant move in the history of this province: taking this province to the negotiating table in the Nisga'a negotiations, participating in the task force and endorsing in principle the idea of a treaty commission. Those are all very important steps down the road.

In broad terms, I think we are committed to treaty negotiations that will produce economic stability but at the same time recognize that there is a social injustice that needs to be corrected -- which will protect the interests of third parties and private-property interests, and produce social harmony.

I'm a little surprised that the leader of the third party would talk in such strong terms about the need to come to negotiations with a great sense of preparedness, because one of the experiences I have found since becoming minister is that there has been relatively little 

[ Page 954 ]

preparation of the specifics of, say, a particular negotiation -- I'm thinking of the Nisga'a negotiation -- in terms of getting a mandate to the negotiators as to what they are to negotiate, or actually having the data compiled as to what the various competing interests are. There wasn't a lot there.

The general principles that we bring to the negotiating process are the ones that I've articulated. We're doing our best, without in any way undermining those particular negotiations, to develop positions and take them to the negotiating table. Obviously I don't want to undermine the negotiating by getting into too much of the specifics of what we take to the table at this stage, but I do want to assure the member that we are serious about third-party consultation and public consultation, and we're serious about making sure that the public will be fully apprised of the positions we take to the table and will have an opportunity to participate before any final treaties are signed.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly nobody wants to undermine the negotiations, but the reality is that the negotiators of the Nisga'a claim at least had a set of principles that were public information. Everyone -- not only the negotiator but anyone who cared to read them -- understood the position that the government was taking. It seems to me that at the end of the day, while there is broad public support today for the negotiation and settlement of claims, there needs to be public support for the settlements that you reach.

I suspect if we look at Meech Lake we will find that no solution -- if it's presented when the agreement has been reached -- will get very broad support. What it will attract is criticism from those people who feel the settlement isn't large enough and from those people who feel that the settlement is too generous. We are all, I'm coming to understand, natural critics. It's much easier to criticize than it is to do. But the danger of closed negotiations, the danger of the principles, particularly for the province of British Columbia, which has the primary responsibility to represent the interests of British Columbians....

I want to digress for a minute about that, because Ottawa clearly has, and has recognized, a fiduciary responsibility to Indian people. I think that one of the great tragedies of this whole process is that Ottawa has decided that the same ministry that is going to provide for the daily needs of Indian people is going to negotiate a claim with them. I don't see British Columbians looking to Ottawa for much support for British Columbians, regardless of who they are. British Columbians naturally have to look to their government to look after their interests, and I would suggest that the best way to get support from the average British Columbian is to let him or her know where you start from. Let people know what the claims are, what the extent of the claims is, what position the province takes to the table, what position Ottawa takes to the table. If people understand where everyone's coming from, they will have a far better chance of accepting the solution when it's finally reached. But if you simply go to the Nisga'a negotiations and keep the door closed for the next three years and say, "We have a settlement; we hope you'll endorse it," you won't get public endorsement.

What I am hoping to hear from the minister in general terms is what position the province now takes to the negotiations. Because if you don't have a position, you're going to wind up where somebody else wants to take you. I would be interested, perhaps after I hear the minister's comments, in going through the only basic principles on record -- those of the previous government -- and finding out item-by-item whether the minister agrees or disagrees with the position. They are fairly simply spelled out.

Hon. A. Petter: At the level of principles, if that's the level we're talking about, I think the government and I have done our best to articulate the principles with which we are proceeding. I will be happy to reiterate them. But principles don't ultimately tell the public what you're prepared to negotiate at the table on a particular point; that requires a much more extensive form of participation, interaction and consultation. It seems to me that you are sort of mixing the two and suggesting that somehow by articulating principles we are going to provide some kind of definition, which I don't think any principles -- the previous government's or this one's -- will satisfy.

I am really surprised to hear the member pushing this line on this government, because two of the frustrations on the Nisga'a front when I became minister were that.... The previous government had prevented a pamphlet from being circulated in the area where the claim was taking place, to fully inform the non-aboriginal citizenry of precisely what was at issue in that negotiation. There was initially a tripartite agreement to circulate that pamphlet through the territory to inform the public about those negotiations. That agreement was subsequently abrogated, or wasn't acted upon, when cabinet decided to withhold support, as I understand it -- the minister did, anyway -- for the circulation of that pamphlet. One of the first things I had to do as minister was to get my hands on the draft, look through it and make sure that it represented the positions, as we understood them, of the new government, and that it was not contentious. Then the pamphlet was circulated, so that the people would have precisely the information that you're saying they ought to have -- and I agree. But the previous government, for whatever reasons, decided not to act upon it and to withhold that information.

Now the other reason I'm surprised is.... Another major frustration that I have encountered, on the part of third-party interests I've dealt with, is that the framework of agreement that was entered into by the previous government in the Nisga'a negotiation contains no provision for what the third-party role is to be in those negotiations. Is it very restrictive. It provides no recognition of third-party participation, arm's length from the table or otherwise. So part of the job I have been engaged in is working with the third-party group to try to develop -- and we're still in the process of doing this -- a set of principles to articulate what their involvement will be in subsequent negotiations. But I've had to make it very clear that those principles 

[ Page 955 ]

cannot be applied unless all the parties agree at the Nisga'a table, because they would violate the framework agreement that your government agreed to, which precludes the kind of third-party involvement that the third-party group feels they ought to have.

At the principle level, I agree with much of what is being said by the leader of the third party. But in terms of the application -- where the rubber hits the road -- in terms of this particular negotiation in which the previous government was involved.... In terms of informing the public, the pamphlet didn't go out; in terms of third-party involvement, no effort was made to actually articulate and build into the framework agreement, or even identify contemporaneously with the framework agreement, what that third-party involvement would be with respect to that one negotiation.

J. Weisgerber: As, the old saying goes, "a little knowledge is dangerous." I guess it applies here. First of all, the pamphlet that you speak of.... If there was a decision not to circulate it, it was a decision not to fund the circulation. I'm not aware of any other restriction that cabinet would have wanted to put on it or could have put on it. In fact, if the Nisga'a people or the federal government or both wanted to circulate some information, I would be amazed if anyone would try to prevent them from doing so.

Secondly, if the minister would care to go back and look at the minutes that led up to the negotiation with the Nisga'a, one of the final sticking points was the access of interested third parties to the negotiations. It was one of the last concessions by the province in order to get negotiations going. I agree with you insomuch that access to negotiations is a difficult issue. The minister might know, if he looked closely at the Nisga'a situation, that any Nisga'a citizen can come in and observe the negotiations at any time, whereas that same opportunity is not afforded to others. But if the minister will look a bit further, he will find that one of the last issues on the table that was a roadblock to signing the initial undertaking with the Nisga'a was this question of public participation. I was as disappointed as anyone else that there wasn't full and open discussion. The reality was that there was no mechanism that third parties or others had developed, other than to say that the negotiations should be held in public. At that time, that probably would have precluded the negotiation starting.

As I say, I appreciate your point as far as the Nisga'a negotiations go. I agree with the minister, and I hope in future the negotiations will be held in public. I sense that the minister would like to respond.

Hon. A. Petter: I think a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm not going to take the leader of the third party on over this, because his knowledge in this area is considerable. In terms of the pamphlet, perhaps a little more knowledge would help. The framework agreement provides that the parties cannot circulate information unless there is agreement by all three parties. There's a confidentiality provision in the framework agreement -- as I'm sure you're aware, now that you recall it -- that says that information cannot be circulated by any of the parties unless there is three-party agreement. So the province could -- and did, in my understanding -- prevent the circulation of that pamphlet, perhaps because the circulation was coming too close to an election; I don't know, but for whatever reasons.

With respect to the other matter of third-party involvement, I don't want to suggest to you that there weren't difficulties. I understand, but I hope that same level of understanding that I'm now articulating is brought the other way. These are very tricky and difficult matters. Third parties want to be fully involved. They want to be at the table. As has been suggested by the leader of the third party in terms of the negotiating process, that can be, and probably is, in most cases, a non-starter. That's one of the reasons that the task force recommended that third parties be represented at the table by governments. I still think that if you're going to represent third parties at the table as a government, there is an obligation to articulate and to develop with third parties what that relationship is going to be. Now if you say there wasn't time to do that or there were no proposals on the table, I understand that. Again, I hope the same measure of understanding is visited upon me when I say that we make difficult decisions sometimes, and not always in the way we would want in these very tricky issues.

I'm happy with the member's response in the sense that I think that it does acknowledge the difficulties here. That's the point I'm trying to make. These are very difficult issues, and questions of communications with third parties are difficult issues. What I'm saying is that this government not only recognizes the difficulty but is doing something about that; we are working with third parties. I'm not saying the previous government wouldn't have done the same, but we are doing that to try to work out an arrangement, a set of relations, that will govern the relationship, so that third parties can be assured that their voices and interests are heard and represented in negotiations.

We are committed to sharing information. We did approve the pamphlet being circulated. I think those two acts speak to the commitment that we have to make sure that the interests of all British Columbians are represented at the negotiating table and that British Columbians do feel secure and supportive of the process that's going ahead.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: I'm not going to spend the whole afternoon arguing about who paid for what or who allowed what. Let's move on. I understood the minister to say that he was generally supportive of the principles that have been.... Okay, let me put it in the form of a question. Let's look at the principles that guided the previous government. Perhaps then we could understand where this government differs in its approach to claims negotiations.

I'll look at an ad -- I'm sure the minister's familiar with it -- which ran in newspapers and was widely circulated. It says: "The province of British Columbia will be guided in the settlement process by the follow-

[ Page 956 ]

ing principles: settlements should be fair, consistent, affordable, final and binding." I wonder whether the minister has any difficulty with that first principle.

Hon. A. Petter: What we are seeking are fair settlements that are indeed affordable and bring a measure of certainty. That's exactly what the task force said. I guess the only reason I want to equivocate even a little about the word "final" is that the task force report suggests that certainty can be achieved in a number of ways. I'm not sure whether "final" suggests that there is only one way to do that. What we are trying to achieve is fair settlements that are affordable -- and my notes may not be comprehensive of the full principle -- that are binding, and that do bring about the kind of certainty and economic stability that people are looking for.

J. Weisgerber: Fair enough. In recognition of the fact that the principles were published before the report, I think certainty is what everyone was trying to achieve.

The second item in the principles indicated that settlement should respect the rights and interests of all British Columbians, including property ownership, which the minister has covered, and legal rights emanating from contracts, leases, tenures and other legal arrangements. I wonder whether or not the government and the minister would support that second principle.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, obviously we will respect all rights of all citizens of British Columbia in treaty negotiations and in every other activity we engage in as a government.

J. Weisgerber: This particular topic is the area I'd like to spend a little time exploring, because the government has indicated that it recognizes that aboriginal title was in fact extinguished where fee-simple title was granted on lands in British Columbia. It then goes on to talk about aboriginal rights and has so far been silent on the rights of others, through interest in real property -- for example, through leases, tenures and other legal property rights. I'm curious to know what the position is, because if the government hasn't been silent, it hasn't spoken very loudly.

Hon. A. Petter: The treaty negotiation process will take place within the framework of those rights along with other rights. We will be negotiating mindful and respectful of those rights, in trying to reach accommodations with first nations that are consistent with those rights.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not trying to set you up for something here. It's obvious that if you were to negotiate the Nisga'a claim or any other claim, certain existing rights and tenures that people other than the Nisga'a people themselves have been granted by government in the settlement area would be affected by the settlement. If they aren't, then the areas and assets on which the negotiations are to be based are going to be pretty thin, if you're simply going to acknowledge that you're not going to touch anything that's already affected by some form of legal tenure -- and I don't think you're going to. The question then has to be some level of comfort from the government to those tenure-holders that the government is committed to seeing adequate compensation where people's rights to a Crown asset are prematurely terminated.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's assurances that he's not trying to set me up for something.

Underlying the question, it seems to me, is an assumption that the only way to provide greater access to first nations is by displacing someone else's interests, and that may well not be the case. It may be that there are opportunities -- for joint venturing; for co-management; for participation by companies -- that can themselves be negotiated that will produce a measure of economic opportunity to first nations as part of a treaty negotiation and a measure of economic stability to entrepreneurs who hold existing licenses and tenures in these areas. I don't think we should preclude those opportunities. For many first nations the opportunity to joint-venture and participate with established tenure-holders is a very attractive one, because they gain expertise; they gain the opportunity to take advantage of all the knowledge and infrastructure that tenure-holder may have.

I certainly think that joint venturing and other forms of participation with existing tenure-holders may well be part of ultimate treaty arrangements that will be mutually agreed to by first nations and by those third-party interests. It's one of the reasons that we must ensure that third-party interests are involved. It's not only in their interest, but in first nations' interests, that they be involved.

Beyond that, if you're asking if we respect the rights, as the principle stated, of third-party interests and tenure-holders, then my answer is clearly we do.

J. Weisgerber: The final answer is one that most people would expect to hear. If the minister and his negotiators are able to craft negotiations with first nations in which they would see their aspirations reached, and third-party interests in the natural resources in the area would feel that their interests have not in any way been reduced, then he should be Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in perpetuity, and we should all stand in awe of him. The only difficulty will be keeping you in British Columbia when the world will be knocking on your door. I wish you well with it. I suspect that the reality is going to be a bit tougher than that.

We're getting nigh on to 5 o'clock. It is my understanding that we're going to adjourn at 5 o'clock today. If that's the case, I would then move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada