Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1992

Volume 2, Number 14

[ Page 1049 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

K. Jones: Visiting us today are two very special women who are members of the national and provincial executives of the Council of Women. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mrs. Bette Pepper, a resident of Cloverdale, vice-president of the National Council of Women and past president of the Provincial Council of Women. She is accompanied by Mrs. Mary Ozolins, who is a resident of Surrey, president of the White Rock and District Council of Women and vice-president of the Provincial Council of Women. Please give these distinguished women a warm welcome.

V. Anderson: I would like the House to welcome with me three classes that are here today from Churchill Secondary School with their teachers, Wendy Shaw, Terry Howe, Ms. Bailey and Dick Williams. Please welcome them.

J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I have two introductions today. One is mayor for a day, a young woman from Lake Cowichan. Her name is Miriam Davidson. She's a very talented young woman who is going on next year -- she is a grade 12 student -- to do a bachelor's degree in music. I'm sure we will all hear much more of her. She's the acting mayor of Lake Cowichan for today and is accompanied by Earle Darling, the mayor of Lake Cowichan for the other 364 days of the year. I'd like the House to make them welcome first, please.

I have another introduction I'm pleased to make. This one is closer to home, if you like. In the gallery with us today are Brian Appleby and Audrey Appleby from Mission. Brian is the regional director of the Fraser Valley Regional District and also a relative of mine. Bringing them down today is my mother, Diana Pullinger. Will the House please make them welcome.

D. Schreck: With us in the gallery today from North Vancouver are Douglas and Edna Baldry. Also from North Vancouver-Lonsdale and in the gallery today are Craig Keating and Daryl Masato. Mr. Keating and Mr. Masato are largely responsible for my being here today. I still speak to them, nevertheless.

B. Jones: Many of my constituents have a special affection for their homeland of Italy, and so it's a great honour for me today to introduce to the House 20 exchange students from Brescia Lunardi, which is a high school in Brescia, in the northern part of Italy near Milan. Accompanying the group is their English teacher, Emanuela Agostino, and also Sal Albanese, who is a sociology instructor at Langara Campus at VCC, and his wife Maureen. They are here to tour British Columbia for three weeks and are being sponsored by Alpha Secondary School in North Burnaby.

With apologies to Hansard and to our Italian guests: Benvenuti alla sede del parlamento della British Columbia qui a Victoria. Siamo lieti di avervi �spiti oggi con noi. That, of course, means: would the House give them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

G. Brewin: I have the honour to present to the Legislature three women named Beth Loring, Doreen Burgess and Judith Kereszti. They are volunteers in the community office which I share with the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your sense of democracy today in the order of the introductions. I too, along with the member for Vancouver-Langara, would like to extend a very warm welcome to the students and teachers visiting from Sir Winston Churchill high school -- the Winston Churchill bulldogs. It's the old high school that I used to attend. They had very high academic standards. People wondered how I made it out of the high school. It's where I used to play basketball. That's when I had a jump shot; it's now a set shot. I would like to welcome you, and I hope you enjoy the proceedings of the Legislature.

Hon. E. Cull: As you know, hon. Speaker, this is Volunteer Recognition Week, and I would like to introduce three volunteers from my office who provide many, many hours of service to the people in Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I'd like the House to make welcome Milo Ringham-Gold, Barbara Gravenor and Jennifer Fisher.

Hon. J. Cashore: Visiting today are the executive members of the B.C. Environmental Network: Anne-Marie Sleeman, Gayle McGee, Douglas Gook and Lloyd Manchester. Would the House please join in making them welcome.

J. Pullinger: I have one further introduction to make, this time in my capacity as government caucus chair. With us for the next four days -- today and three other days -- are the constituency assistants from all of the government constituency offices. They are here for their annual meeting, which they have every year to inform themselves better of the issues and to share information. I think all of us in this Legislature know how very important those people are in our successful functioning as MLAs and in our constituencies to provide our constituents with what they need.

I would like to ask the House to help me make all of those people, and some of our federal assistants who are with them, very welcome indeed.

Hon. P. Priddy: I know that one of the members of the official opposition has welcomed some members of the Provincial Council of Women. There are a number of women here, and the Provincial Council of Women has, for a very long time in this province, been a strong advocate for initiatives that enhance the quality of life for women in this province in education, housing, child care and health care. I would ask the House to welcome the entire group.

[ Page 1050 ]

Oral Questions

STEWART-FIRESTONE CASE

A. Warnke: My question today is for the Attorney General. In the House yesterday and once previously, the Premier told us that he could not recall receiving a letter that he might be subpoenaed in December 1991 to testify in the Stewart-Firestone case.

With respect to the out-of-court settlement in this case and the apparent rush to complete it, would the Attorney General confirm that prior to the settlement the Attorney General himself received a letter dated November 27, 1991, notifying him that he might be subpoenaed as a witness at that trial in December? And what was his advice to the Premier and members of the executive council?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That letter is news to me too. But I'll do the same thing: I'll check the records to see if such a letter exists.

A. Warnke: At any time in his capacity as Attorney General, did he advise the Minister of Labour and the Premier that they could be subpoenaed to testify in the Firestone case, and did he render legal advice to them as the chief law enforcement officer in this province?

[2:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, the answers are no and no.

J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Attorney General. Yesterday the Attorney General stated that there was a confidentiality clause in the Firestone settlement that was agreed to by his ministry's officials. Will he confirm that the confidentiality clause exists in written form?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that as part of the settlement that was reached between the parties, a standard confidentiality clause was included in the settlement.

J. Weisgerber: Yesterday the Attorney General stated it was not the case that the Minister of Labour initiated the Firestone settlement. This implies that he knows who did initiate the settlement. Will the Attorney General tell us who initiated the settlement in the Firestone case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If I knew the answer to that question I would give it. I don't know the answer.

Deputy Speaker: The leader of the third party on a final supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps a question that the Attorney General can answer. The Attorney General has stated that the Crown contributed $12,500 in settlement costs on behalf of Bill Stewart. Will he confirm that the taxpayers were not the only party left holding the bag for the settlement costs? Will he tell us what proportion of the total settlement costs were paid by the taxpayer? The people of British Columbia have a right to this information.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only information I have in respect of the settlement and the costs is that the taxpayers, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, contributed $12,500. I don't know if there was any other money. I assume there was, but I don't know that. I don't know what the total amount was, and I don't know what the proportions are.

PAYMENT OF MEMBERS' LEGAL COSTS

W. Hurd: A question again for the Attorney General. Our questioning yesterday confirmed that the personal damage award assessed against the Minister of Labour was not paid out of the $36,000 in caucus global funds. In fact, the funds were paid by persons or parties unknown after the minister was sworn into office. At any time, did the Attorney General ask the Minister of Labour to confirm to him the source of any outside funds to defray the costs of his personal damage awards, or did the Minister of Labour confide to the Attorney General the source of any outside funding?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure what the question really is asking me to do.

An Hon. Member: Tell the truth.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The suggestion is that I should tell the truth. From the first day I was asked this question by a reporter in December, I have told everything I know about the subject, and I have continued to do that. The question now is about settlement costs about which I have no knowledge. I do know -- as do the public and, I assume, most members of the opposition -- that there was a confidentially clause in this civil suit, which was resolved out of court. There is some amount of damages. I don't know what those settlements were. It's not my business. It was a civil matter. It was decided by the parties in a way that's traditional in our system and our society. I have no other knowledge to convey to members of this House. If I had, I would be delighted to give it to you.

W. Hurd: Again to the Attorney General. Would the source of any funds to defray the cost of the personal damage award assessed against the Minister of Labour be required by law to be included in the member's conflict-of-interest statement?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There was no award.

W. Hurd: Is the Attorney General satisfied that the Minister of Labour has fairly and openly reported all sources of funding that he might have received to defray the costs of his personal damage award in connection with the Stewart-Firestone case, funds that have the potential to place the minister in a conflict-of-interest situation?

[ Page 1051 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like to take a half a moment to expand on the answer to that question. It's important for members of the House to know that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew was acting on behalf of the opposition caucus at the time of those troubles -- acting on instructions, as it were, as part of a caucus initiative. The caucus agreed that if there were any costs associated with that particular initiative, the caucus as a group would be responsible for them. The caucus lived up to its commitment to that member. None of the activities surrounding that particular case and its settlement had anything whatsoever to do with this government or any of its ministers in any of our ministerial capacities.

C. Serwa: My question is to the hon. Premier, and it is regarding the Stewart-Firestone case as well. Yesterday, in response to the question from the leader of the third party, you stated the following: "...and that the member from Esquimalt was reimbursed through the caucus global budget of the NDP caucus at that time." I have a letter in my hands sent to Mrs. Eileen C. Williams by your Minister of Labour dated April 21, 1992. The minister states: "My fees were paid for by the caucus budget. That amounted to an expenditure of approximately $37,000." Will the hon. Premier advise this House if all or only a portion of those fees went directly to that member's pocket?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Social Credit Party would be continuing to bring up this Bud Smith matter. I'm not surprised that they'd be trying to handle the matter the way they are. As the hon. member knows, this matter has been checked out by the auditor general, by the Deputy Attorney General and by the conflict commissioner. All three of those very distinguished, impartial people have said that all of the events surrounding the $37,000 paid toward the provision of legal services for the previous member from Esquimalt were done legally, properly and with full payment for services rendered by lawyers, with not a penny going into the member's pocket -- as the member infers, which I think was quite unfortunate. There was not a penny.

Mr. Speaker, rather than take up the time of the Legislature in question period, I would be quite prepared to table the letters from the auditor general, the Deputy Attorney General and the conflict commissioner saying that this is so.

C. Serwa: I'll quote from the letter from the Ministry of Attorney General, from the deputy minister. The letter was in fact indicated as confidential, but now I'm pleased to quote from it. In the second paragraph it clearly states this: "It is not suggested Mr. Sihota" -- excuse me, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- "accepted money directly. However, it is acknowledged certain legal bills were paid from the opposition caucus budgets for fiscal years 1990-91 and 1991-92." But I have here the letter from the minister indicating: "My fees...."

Deputy Speaker: With the greatest of respect to the member, do you have a question?

Hon. member, I've tried to allow some latitude in light of the seriousness of the matter. However, question period is for the asking of questions to get information, and the answers should provide information. If you wish to table documents, that is acceptable, but extensive quoting from documents at this time is not appropriate.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. The purpose of that was only to advise the House at the moment what was contained in that letter. I again quote from the letter sent by the hon. Minister of Labour: "My fees were paid for by the caucus budget." Hon. Premier, how much of that money was spent -- or was all of it -- and directed to the hon. Minister of Labour? That is the question.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will not refer to some of the statements that I made yesterday, but again, I have given an answer. We have answered all of these questions about the expenditure of taxpayers' money in a forthright way. The people of this province are quite clear that $92,500 was the amount of taxpayers' money paid by Mr. Stewart as the assistant deputy minister for his legal fees and for the settlement of this private matter. We have made it very clear that the amount of funds from the previous NDP opposition budget was $37,000, that every penny of that went to pay for legal fees for a lawyer who was representing the Attorney General critic, the member from Esquimalt. It went to his lawyer; not a penny went to the member. I said that in the last answer, Mr. Speaker. The member for Okanagan West heard that answer, and I can only assume that he either is refusing to accept that answer, which I think is unfortunate, or he is continuing to press this matter for some reason other than obtaining information.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

On a point of order, the government House Leader.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know, of course, on this side of the House we're delighted to answer questions during question period. We're delighted to give the same answers every day. If the members opposite want to ask questions which are of no relevance to the public debate, that's fine with them. However, it seems to me -- having reviewed the Blues for the last week -- that questions by the member, particularly the member for Okanagan West, and others, that pertain to moneys paid out by caucus global budgets in a previous parliament are clearly out of order. I don't know how often we have to canvass these questions.

In order to have full debate, in order to assure members of the House that this side is quite open and has nothing to hide, we're delighted to answer questions in spite of the fact they are out of order. Clearly there comes a point when these questions have to be

[ Page 1052 ]

taken very seriously, and they're completely out of order.

[2:30]

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment. The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order at the time we are in a point of order, which does complicate matters. Would you care to raise your point of order on the one that we're now...?

D. Mitchell: The reason I was rising on a point of order is that the government House Leader is clearly out of order in being on his feet right now. He's been away for a week. He may not be aware of a ruling that was brought down by this Chair last Friday. That ruling was very clear, and I think members of the House have all paid very close attention to the ruling about question period in general, and question period on this specific matter.

If the government House Leader would wish to review Hansard for the ruling that was brought down by the Speaker last Friday, I think he will note that in that ruling there is a reference to page 132 of Beauchesne's fifth edition: "A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of a specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order." As long as a question is addressed to a minister within those guidelines, I think the question is clearly in order. I'd just ask the government House Leader to review the Speaker's ruling.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the point of order, the government House Leader should clearly understand that simply because questions make the government uncomfortable, that in itself doesn't make a question out of order. A question out of order would seem to me be one that contradicted the Speaker's ruling of last Friday. We on this side of the House have looked carefully at the instructions given by the Speaker, and we have followed those instructions carefully. We have been sure that the questions pertain to actions by the government during the time after November 5, and questions that directed themselves to the use of taxpayers' money in that period of time. With that in mind, those questions clearly are in order.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the matter of order on this issue has been quite onerous on the Chair, to say the least. However, all the points are well taken, and the Chair will review the comments made by all the members. Hopefully we can resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the House.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like leave of the House to table the three letters I referred to during question period from the auditor general, the Deputy Attorney General and the commissioner for conflicts.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

FARMWORKER SAFETY

Hon. M. Sihota: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today has been proclaimed a day of mourning for workers killed or seriously injured on the job. Last year 183 British Columbia workers lost their lives. These workers are mourned by their families, friends, co-workers and employers. We mourn them because we all know that workplace accidents can be prevented, yet every year more lives are lost and more workers are injured on the job.

This government -- and I'm sure every member in this House will agree with me -- says that this kind of situation is completely unacceptable. It isn't good enough to say fewer people died on the job this year than last year. It is the responsibility of each of us to help prevent accidents on the job. Each working person, each employer and the Workers' Compensation Board in British Columbia play a role in building a safer and healthier workplace. As an individual, I'm distressed by these statistics, but as Minister of Labour and a part of this administration, I'm determined to do something about it.

In particular, I am most concerned when I consider the plight of British Columbia farmworkers. Here we have an industry with a fluctuating workforce averaging around 24,000 workers, and we don't give them the benefit of the same protection given to other workers in British Columbia. Unbelievably, farmworkers are still not covered by health and safety regulations, a situation which we intend to rectify immediately. Farmworkers are being injured, maimed or killed when they work on machinery that doesn't have proper guards, when they are not wearing the right protective clothing or when they just don't know the proper safety procedures. Farmworkers are being poisoned by improper handling of chemicals because of ignorance or carelessness. Farmworkers are putting themselves at risk every day, because they don't know the proper health and safety procedures.

I think of an individual on southern Vancouver Island who recently passed away when a tank he was welding exploded. I think of a Fraser Valley worker whose arm was nearly torn off when she was caught in a machine. Another Fraser Valley farmer, looking for a drink of water, used an old coffee cup that had previously been filled with pesticide. Just last year on a Chilliwack farm, a worker was killed when his clothing was caught in the mechanism of a sugar beet machine. All of these accidents were preventable. As I say, these incidents are completely intolerable to this administration, and we are acting today to rectify the situation.

Many times in this House, members have called for farmworkers to be afforded the same protection as other workers. As far back as 1952, the Sloan royal commission on workers' compensation recommended that the Workmen's Compensation Act be amended to cover agricultural workers. Today I want to send a message to all farm and agricultural workers, regular and seasonal employees: protection under the Workers Compensation Act will be extended to you soon.

[ Page 1053 ]

It is the first priority of the governors of the Workers' Compensation Board and this government to include farmworkers in health and safety regulations and to ensure that there is protection for farmworkers who deal with moving machinery, just as there is for all workers, and to ensure that chemicals are properly labelled and handled. In fact, we are reviewing all of our occupational health and safety regulations at the Workers' Compensation Board to make sure that they provide the protection all workers need in today's workplace.

I have been in correspondence with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the Worker's Compensation Board and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union. All of them have now agreed to participate in a forum that's necessary to bring together the regulations that are so long overdue in this area of activity. Public forums, which we started in April, are taking place right now in 11 communities in this province. This government and the Workers' Compensation Board are committed to soliciting the greatest possible participation from employers, workers and the public.

In 1991, 20 workers died in the logging industry; 388 were permanently disabled. It is no consolation to say that numbers were higher in previous years: 29 people lost their lives and 467 were permanently disabled in 1990. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should lose their life on the job or be seriously injured. This government, in partnership with the logging industry, is committed to dealing with this very serious issue.

During the last year a series of logging industry safety forums initiated by the previous administration have taken place in British Columbia to elicit suggestions from people as to how we can prevent accidents on the job in the forest industry. Their ideas are being drafted into a final report. Subsequently, a plan of action will be developed by the various stakeholders.

I am pleased to say that the Workers' Compensation Board is doing more than ever to crack down on unsafe worksites and unhealthy work environments. We're doing more safety inspections than before, we're issuing more compliance orders, and penalties against employers who fail to meet their compliance obligations have gone up. But the best way to save lives and prevent injury in the workplace is to give workers the skills, knowledge and direction to prevent accidents from happening. Prevention starts with education and getting the message out to employers and workers. In that way, again, the Workers' Compensation Board is taking a number of steps to publish workplace safety materials, including manuals, videos, posters and other educational devices.

In conclusion, it is the right of every worker to expect a safe and healthy workplace regardless of the industry or employer. Workplace fatalities cause needless grief to families and loved ones. Every life lost is a tragic loss to British Columbia. Workplace accidents can be prevented and they must be prevented. It is my wish, and I'm sure the wish of every member of this House, that next year on this day of mourning we can tell the people of this province that our farms, forests, mines and mills -- wherever British Columbians work -- are safer and healthier places in which to work.

G. Farrell-Collins: As a member of the opposition and the opposition critic for Labour and Consumer Services, I too am pleased to participate in the statement made by the Minister of Labour on a day that is very serious and emotional for many people in the province, in recognition of their family members who have perished in the workplace. We also feel that some important changes have to be made in British Columbia to ensure that when all workers go to work, whether they be farmworkers or forestry workers, the workplace is safe and they aren't taking their lives in their hands just by going to work.

However, I do have some concerns with the process by which the minister intends to achieve this goal, a goal that we all feel is important. I believe that the simple extension of the Workers' Compensation Board to another sector of the economy is not going to accomplish anything; it's merely going to enlarge the bureaucracy and burden the industry -- in this case the farm industry -- with an added set of regulations.

Given the number of complaints and concerns that I have in my constituency office about the workers' compensation process, I'm not sure that that in itself is necessarily the best way to go about it. I would suggest that by just adding regulations, by incorporating another sector of the economy under workers' compensation -- a process that has become an extremely large bureaucracy -- we're perhaps not using the best way and the most efficient means to achieve the results we all want to seek. The prohibitive costs of the Workers' Compensation Board alone, it seems, go to bureaucracy, and day by day less and less goes to compensating the worker who has been injured or to help workers readjust to new jobs, etc. I think that is a trend we should try and reverse.

In the agricultural industry specifically, the workers and farmers together should be the people who are consulted to develop an efficient process to ensure that the dollars that are spent on improving the safety in that industry are devoted to education and compensation. Education and compensation are the key to workplace safety issues. I would like to see -- and I think all members of the House would like to see -- less of a tendency on the part of government to go towards regulations which would just sit on paper and would have to be enforced by some bureaucracy. We'd rather see the majority of the funds go to education so that workers have the skills -- as the minister mentioned but didn't stress -- and the security on the job site and the knowledge that they are not going to be injured on the job. I think that is the stress and the tack that the government should be taking as opposed to just simply relying on education.

In closing, I think the minister should attempt, through the Workers' Compensation Board and through his ministry, to stress the education, stress the compensation factor, and ensure that the players, the people, are involved. They are the ones who are going to be drafting the guidelines -- not necessarily the regulations, but the guidelines and the programs -- to ensure that we all have a safe workplace.

[ Page 1054 ]

L. Hanson: It is my responsibility to express on behalf of my members how we'd like to join the Minister of Labour in recognizing this day of mourning for people who have been injured and killed in the workplace. I would like to make one statement about the minister's statement. There is a suggestion in it that the farm community is not covered by compensation. They are, in fact, covered by compensation. What the minister is referring to is that the farm community wishes to, very energetically and vigorously, enforce their own safety regulations within their organization. I believe the minister is suggesting that that enforcement should be passed over to the Workers' Compensation Board. In fact, the people who work in the farming community are covered. They do pay an assessment and are covered by workers' compensation if they are injured in the workplace.

[2:45]

Over the years that the WCB has been an entity in our province -- and in Canada and, I guess, in most of the world -- they have made tremendous strides towards the safety of workers in the workplace. There's no question of that. But as long as anyone is injured or killed in the workplace, there is still work to be done. We support the continuance of that work. We support that in any accidents of any kind, or whenever anyone is killed in our society. We should have more recognition of safety and more education so that all people who get in that difficult situation -- and their families -- are not punished by death and the loss that goes with that.

So we in the third party support the recognition of this day of mourning for those killed in the workplace. We have some reservations about the actual applications of the regulations to the farm community. To make absolutely certain everyone understands that, the farm community is covered now by workers' compensation.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

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

D. Symons: I'm just continuing with the questions on B.C. Rail, if we can. I am wondering whether the amount the Highways ministry is subsidizing B.C. Rail has been increasing, decreasing, or fairly static over the last decade, and what the future projections are for those particular aspects of B.C. Rail that are being subsidized? Are they likely to become self-sufficient, or are they going to remain as a subsidized entity?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can give you a bit of a breakdown on the changes in the current fiscal year. The passenger service subsidy has been reduced by about $900,000, and Treasury Board has urged a marketing plan to see that that would decrease further in the future.

The Royal Hudson has temporarily gone up about $145,000. I believe much of the expense had to do with some capital work in the yard and the refurbishment of the additional engine. We are also giving general direction that that subsidy should be reduced in the future.

On the Fort Nelson extension, the operating costs are up about $2.5 million this year; capital, about the same. If you add up all of the figures, the total subsidy has increased from $11.5 million last year to about $13.2 million this fiscal year.

D. Symons: On the Fort Nelson part of the subsidy, is the increase partly because of the slowdown in the economy, and therefore the earnings for that particular part of the railway are less?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The revenues on the line have been generally static, and the subsidy has been up and down a little from year to year. Essentially, both revenues and subsidies have been static.

K. Jones: Hon. minister, I'd like to ask you, in reference to the proposed or contemplated Amtrak rail service between Seattle and Vancouver, whether you have been involved in discussions with regard to restoration of that passenger service.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, neither I nor the ministry have been consulted on this most recent concern, which is the idea of re-establishing the Amtrak service. I think much of the impetus of that is related to the upcoming American elections. However, from time to time in the past we've been in consultation with Oregon and Washington regarding the establishment of a high-speed train that might at some time in the future come up all the way from Portland to Vancouver.

K. Jones: In that discussion about a high-speed train, have you discussed possible routes that would be rerouting the present facility? Obviously that present facility would not be possible as a route for any high-speed train -- certainly not through White Rock, Crescent Beach and the area of population where I and the adjoining members have representation.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Anything up to the present time has been strictly pre-feasibility -- economic feasibility. It has not at all gotten down to the point of route selection or design, and probably we're some distance from that.

K. Jones: In future discussions can we believe that you will also be considering such things as local commuter rail usage of the existing trackage? Have you had any discussions with Burlington Northern with regard to providing, or having B.C. Rail provide, an existing urban or suburban service from the White Rock area through the Vancouver and New Westminster areas?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Within the Transport 2021 study going on in the Greater Vancouver Regional

[ Page 1055 ]

District, the possibility of commuter rail is recognized. They've been asked to compile an inventory of possible rights-of-way that might at some point be useful in a commuter rail system. The possibilities that come to mind immediately are a commuter train on CP Rail coming in on the north side of the Fraser and of another commuter service on Southern Rail on the south side of the Fraser; but the possibility of something coming up from the White Rock area on Burlington Northern trackage could also be considered. At such time as any of these things come a step or two closer to reality, there would certainly be an ongoing public consultation procedure.

K. Jones: Does the minister or his staff have any plans to bring under the envelope of B.C. Rail Southern Rail, which was previously government-owned and is now privately owned.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: For the past several months B.C. Rail has been undertaking a study to determine whether or not we should show interest in purchasing Southern Rail. I'm anticipating the results of that study to me in the not too distant future.

K. Jones: Through the centre of my riding -- Cloverdale -- we have the B.C. Rail line coming right down beside Highway 10. We have a major intersection there -- a major highway, the Pacific Highway, 176th Street. There seems to be a lack of response by Southern Rail to the concerns of the businesses immediately adjoining trackage there. With their speed of travel through that area, they're really shaking the buildings drastically. People are concerned about the structural problems they may be having in their buildings as a result of the speed. They've asked them to reduce their speed, and it still doesn't seem to be resolved. Have you had any communications, or have you had other people expressing a concern about the speed of Southern Rail throughout its trackage?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We have not had any other complaints related to Southern Rail. As the member opposite would know, it's a private railway, of course, owned by Itel Corp. out of San Francisco. However, their operations are subject to regulation under Municipal Affairs, I believe. If you or your constituents have specific complaints, if they were to be passed on to me, I would pass them on to the appropriate regulatory agency.

K. Jones: I appreciate your kind offer, hon. minister. We'll bring that forward to you soon, with details.

There's a further area of concern, and that is that there appears to be a problem with the intersection of Highway 10 and the Pacific Highway, where trucks containing loads such as gasoline come to a stop and then proceed across because there is a train stopped just up the tracks doing something. I don't know what they're doing there. Maybe they're going off for coffee or something. In the meantime, the trucks are waiting for the light for Highway 10 to change, and they're proceeding into that area. There's a great concern that this train may proceed right into the side of a tanker truck or some other vehicle because of the design there. Has your ministry, either the Highways or Transportation section, taken a look at this problem?

[3:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All the way along that section there are numerous conflict zones, and the only real solution is a combination of road closures and grade separations. As you would know, grade separations with railways are extremely expensive. So we know what the problems are -- there's been extensive study and analysis of those problems -- but we don't have a solution.

K. Jones: I might remind you that there is an overpass of the CPR main-line coal-train service about 2,000 feet or less immediately south of this location, where the Pacific Highway actually rises up and over those tracks. Is it not feasible to consider moving this B.C. Rail, which is now Southern Rail, into that area and eliminating this dangerous situation, and also, in doing so, to consider moving it further away from our business community so that it's not so impacted?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The railway that you're making reference to -- you've indicated B.C. Rail a couple of times -- used to be part of the old B.C. Electric Railway. It has nothing to do with B.C. Rail directly. It's now owned by Itel of San Francisco, and if there's a case of relocating trackage -- at, no doubt, some considerable expense -- this issue would have to be broached with Itel. It's my understanding that the company is already under considerable financial stress, and that is why they're looking to sell Southern Rail -- which is what it has now become. It would surprise me if they have the money to do it, but you could certainly approach Itel or the successor company -- whatever that turns out to be. At the present time, given the financial straitjacket that we're in, we don't have the money to construct grade separations for our highways.

K. Jones: Minister, just to diverge slightly in that regard, Itel is a U.S.-owned company. Are you telling us that they own the trackage right-of-way as well as the operating rights on those rails?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No. The province has the ownership of the right-of-way. The railway running on the right-of-way is owned by Itel.

K. Jones: Just to clarify further, does that mean that the rails and ties are owned by the province or by Itel?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: They are owned by Itel.

K. Jones: Itel is in financial difficulty and is proposing to sell their operations. Is your government going to allow them to sell to another foreign-owned company?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think possibly it's premature to say what might or might not be allowed. I

[ Page 1056 ]

think we would have to look at the benefits to the taxpayers, citizens and industry of British Columbia. To my knowledge, the only groups contemplating purchase at this time -- although there may be others -- are CN, CP, B.C. Rail and an employee group.

K. Jones: Did you say that only these B.C. companies were contemplating purchasing Southern? I hope that, philosophically, you will stand by the direction of the NDP, as it has been in the past, not to allow the basic infrastructure of our province to go to outside interests. Would that be paraphrasing the philosophy of this government fairly well?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite would like to stand in the House, or write -- drop me a note, send me a line, telegram, anything else -- urging that this government retain the ownership of critical infrastructure within British Columbia or Canada, I'd be willing and quite happy to accept that letter.

K. Jones: I was really asking you whether it was the philosophy of this government to do that. Could you clarify what the philosophy of the government is with regard to ownership?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is our philosophy that we maintain ownership, but there may be instances around the province with short-haul rail lines where one of our majors might, for example, want to get out, and the choice is either abandonment or having a short-haul line come in to take over. If we have to make a choice between abandonment or allowing a short-haul line to be owned by a non-Canadian firm, we will have to make that determination at that time based on the merits of the particular case.

K. Jones: Do you consider Southern Rail a short-haul operation?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Most of their operation is short-haul. Most of their operation is moving cars from one of the Annacis terminals onto either CN or CP, but their line running out the valley is in a slightly different category. All of us in this province have an interest in being mindful of the value of that right-of-way for purposes of establishing commuter rail coming out along the south of the Fraser. I would not see the loss of that right-of-way lightly.

K. Jones: I'd like to change the direction to another area of concern of my constituents, and that's the question of the dangerous cargo that is being transported on the Burlington Northern railway. What action is your ministry taking to protect the people of White Rock and Surrey, whose houses and lives would be directly impacted by any spillage or accident which could occur on this right-of-way at any time? Those trains are going throughout the night, as well as during the day, and during the peak tourist season, with thousands of children playing on the beach at White Rock. What action are you taking?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The transportation of dangerous goods falls under the control of the Ministry of Attorney General, so I would respectfully submit that you hold onto that question and put it to the Attorney General in his estimates.

K. Jones: The minister is fully aware that the Attorney General's estimates have already been completed, and he is trying to pass the buck to an area where the questioning isn't possible. Surely the minister is going to have to address the fact that the right-of-way on which those trains travel and also the rolling stock that is transported on that is within his jurisdiction and responsibility. I would ask you to answer the question, please.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I hesitate to, but I will have to point out to the minister opposite that he's wrong on two counts. First, it's federal regulations, not provincial, that govern Burlington Northern; and second, it is the responsibility of the Attorney General. If you have questions relating to Agriculture, Aboriginal Affairs or Education that you happened to miss when the appropriate minister was standing to take those questions, you can't wait until I'm standing and then put them to me.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I appreciate the fact that he addresses me as hon. minister. I will hold that for three or four years, and then I'll be willing to accept that.

Hon. minister, you still have a responsibility to protect the people within the routes for which you have the responsibility by being the Minister of Transportation. I want you to tell us what you are doing to look at this problem that falls under your jurisdiction by being responsible for transportation. Please give us an answer, not pass it off.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: All members of this House have responsibilities to each other and to the citizens as a whole. In the highway system, if you want to talk about drinking and driving, the transport of hazardous materials and anything like that, the Minister of Highways is not the responsible party, even though these offences might occur on the highways.

Those issues, including the issue you're mentioning, are not within my realm of responsibility. The purpose of these estimates is for the members opposite to ask me questions about matters within my realm of responsibility. The question that you have asked, as has been pointed out to me, goes beyond even that. It actually falls under federal regulations for the transport of dangerous goods on that particular rail line. You will simply have to put your question elsewhere.

K. Jones: I'd like to thank the hon. minister for his forthright answer, and I appreciate the opportunity to deal with these. We will bring up those questions further in some other venue.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, earlier in a little spat with the other party before lunch, you mentioned the expression "holus-bolus" twice. I think you have the

[ Page 1057 ]

wrong expression; this is merely for your own edification. I think you are really looking for "hocus-pocus."

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to the third party, I agree.

C. Tanner: My question concerns another area of federal jurisdiction unfortunately, but I would like your opinion. It obviously refers to the railway that we have on this island, the E&N. What ambition does the minister or his ministry have toward the E&N?

Hon. A Charbonneau: As the member opposite pointed out, it is a federal responsibility. But having said that, I also want to point out that there are certain elements of E&N that are of great interest to us, and, I'm sure, to members opposite: the general transportation of passengers, in addition to freight, on the line; the possibility of the E&N route at some time in the future being available for commuter rail; and the further possibility of utilizing part of the right-of-way on the E&N for a busway. We have a whole range of reasons why we have interest in that line, and we will, when the appropriate time comes, deal with the owner and with the federal government to make sure that we protect the long-term interests of the citizens of British Columbia.

C. Tanner: Of course, this opens up a whole can of worms and begs for many other questions. I suspect that I'm going to get much the same answer, but I'll give you a chance to give a different answer than for the previous question.

During this morning's discussion the minister talked about subsidies to the Lillooet and Prince George area for the passenger service. He talked about subsidies on the Royal Hudson, and he talked about subsidies on the Fort Nelson line. He stated that you were attempting to reduce those subsidies somewhat, although I think they've gone up a million or so this year, but that the long-term objective is to reduce them. If, in the minister's view, it necessitated a subsidy to take over those lines now, and that's all it necessitated, and appreciating the fact that the rolling stock and the roadbed are owned by two different entities -- one being Via Rail and one CP -- would the minister be prepared to give some commitment to this House now on a timetable or on what he particularly seeks?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No, I would not be willing to give a commitment on a timetable. I'll just reiterate that we have an interest on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We are also, as you would be aware, conducting a transportation study in the Capital Regional District which is one-half funded by the provincial government, and the possibility of transit and/or commuter rail could raise its head in those areas as well. So for a variety of reasons we want to make sure that that right-of-way and the Galloping Goose right-of-way are preserved, that the options are preserved.

C. Tanner: Would the minister visualize a transference at a nominal amount of dollars from the federal government to the provincial government, or would he be looking at something else as an actual payment?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The responsibility for passenger transportation on that line, and any subsidies that must flow with that responsibility, are purely a federal matter. So if they would be so kind as to transfer it over to us, I would anticipate that they will transfer some subsidies at the same time.

C. Tanner: Earlier this morning when commuter traffic was discussed for another area -- and frankly, I've forgotten where it was, but I think it was on the lower mainland -- the minister referred the member asking the question to a different department. With your advice, Mr. Minister, should I be asking these questions of another department of government, or am I asking the right minister?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's a bit of a grey zone in commuter rail. Shorter commuter rail is typically called transit and would fall within the ambit of the Minister of Finance. I have taken the liberty of making some general comments about rail and about transit as well in other discussions. But the responsibility for transit, of course, is with the hon. Minister of Finance. The responsibility for railroads within British Columbia, other than the federally regulated railroads, lies with me.

C. Tanner: This is my last question. My interest is twofold. This is not only the fact that I live on the island and it is important to us, but it seems to me that there's an occasion here, with that rail bed and with a different rolling stock, to repeat what we've done with the Royal Hudson, or to repeat what we're doing to Whistler, or to repeat what we're doing in the tourism aspect. Does the minister foresee the cooperation between his ministry and the Tourism ministry enhancing those things for the province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Definitely. Furthermore, several months ago I got up at a terrible hour in the morning to tour some of the traffic woes of the western communities with the Hon. Moe Sihota and the Hon. Rick Kasper. As part of that, after we had a look at the Colwood crawl, we boarded the E&N morning train and went up to Duncan for breakfast, the idea being to have a better look at the right-of-way but also to see firsthand what the tourism potential was for that. We came back and I met at the Hon. Sihota's offices with the historical railway society and listened to a presentation of theirs about establishing some kind of a tourist service -- in particular, a supper train, a dining experience -- with them. I'm quite interested in it. I think it is a very good idea, and I would do whatever I could to further that.

P. Dueck: I have a couple questions or concerns relating to my community and the community just east of ours, which is the Abbotsford community. Mine is

[ Page 1058 ]

Matsqui. I think senior people are aware of the problem, but I think I should bring it up at this time. There is a highway from the Sumas border crossing to Highway 401. This issue has been going around for years. The highway is completely inadequate. They are now reconstructing the offices and buildings at the Sumas crossing, but when the tourists come further and get into British Columbia -- as a matter of fact, it's the gateway to Canada and British Columbia -- it is a very bad situation. It is practically considered a trail rather than a highway. I tried to influence the previous government, without much success. I thought perhaps my success would be much greater at this time.

Since you have so much money that you are giving away in the fair wage policy, just a small portion of that would cure our ills very easily. Quite seriously, it is a major problem. I think it is also a black mark for British Columbia and for the highway system in general when we have people coming from the United States -- thousands and thousands of cars that use our route every day -- into British Columbia. The entry to British Columbia is this particular Highway 241 which then enters Abbotsford and Matsqui municipality. That is one concern.

The other one is the Mount Lehman overpass. That's been in the works for many, many years, and I see people already nodding, you senior people. There have been drawings done; I think all the drawings are complete. It doesn't take that much money. Again, I want to stress that a very small portion of the unfair wage policy would correct this. I would really like to ask the minister whether he would look at it again; if there's anything that can be done for those two areas. They showed up as a priority in the transportation committee report, and I think they must be two of the major, very negative points in British Columbia -- never mind our particular municipalities.

The constituents in our municipalities are undoubtedly right in being very concerned and very disgusted with that situation. We don't seem to get any relief. The Mount Lehman road overpass is something promised in the past; studies have been done and I think even the blueprints have been created. As a matter of fact, there have been changes. At one time it was quite a minor overpass or interchange; now it's become quite major. Again I would like to implore the minister to look at it and show what this new government can do that the previous administration could not accomplish. Is that sort of leading into a reply that you could say "yes" to?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Not likely. Let's take your problem areas one at a time. First was the border crossing at Sumas. The costs to make the long-term improvement required, as I recall, were $4 million or $5 million. I wouldn't want to dispute with you too much, but I think that the vast majority of traffic on that road is cross-border shoppers. Frankly, the line-up problem that backs up along that portion of the road is due to people on their way down into Sumas for cross-border shopping. So I really wonder why we would want to go out of our way to improve facilities in order to encourage cross-border shopping.

Nonetheless, although we could not afford to do the $5 million worth of work there this year, we did offer an alternative to the municipality which would have resulted in a substantial improvement of the traffic flow to the border crossing. They turned that down some months ago, so we reverted to a low-cost couple of hundred thousand dollar solution to make some minor improvements to the existing traffic pattern. Now my understanding is that perhaps there is some further negotiation going on as to whether or not the municipality will accept our previous offer. But it is not in the cards for the current year, and I would doubt that it's there for the next year, to expend the $5 million to make the major improvement that is necessary in the long run.

At the Mount Lehman crossing of the Trans-Canada, that would be an $8 million or $10 million interchange. Again, it's one of probably dozens and dozens needed around the province. There's no debate there. It's strictly a question of when it can be afforded. Given that we are trying to dig our way out of a budget deficit of $2.4 billion from the last fiscal year, projected to be $2.8 billion this year, we've had to make that tough choice of cutting back quite severely in highways construction. Some of these projects you're referring to, and members opposite have referred to, simply have to be delayed for a year or two, or some of them more, before we can, within the perimeter of fiscal responsibility, proceed with them. None of them are cancelled. They are delayed, however.

P. Dueck: I think I should correct the minister when he said it's mostly cross-border shopping. This problem was there before we had any of that volume of cross-border shoppers that we see today. So it's a problem that's been going on for years, when people came this way rather than us going south of the border.

I think you mentioned something about a municipality turning down a lesser amount for some upgrading. I wasn't aware of that. This is not in my constituency, although it affects the total area of all of central Fraser Valley. I still think that moneys could be found for these projects.

I'm sorry that it's not your ministry, but I have to again refer to this fair wage policy. It is money that your government found that is really thrown out, and we figure it is $200 million that could be spent in bringing people to this province, rather than something that people aren't even asking for. So I take exception to the money spent in one area. The priority is all wrong.

[3:30]

The Mount Lehman interchange, of course, is more than just for that specific area. It's for the total community and also for traffic that comes back and forth from Vancouver or from the valley to do business in that particular area and that has to use that particular off-and on-ramp. It's a dangerous situation. Like I said, it's been going on for years and years, so it's not something that's been on the wish list for six months or a year. This has been on the agenda for a long time. It was identified as a priority. It was not only identified, but it was also more or less promised to be going ahead in the very near future. To see it being delayed not only

[ Page 1059 ]

this year but perhaps next year or the year after is unacceptable when this current government can find hundreds of millions of dollars in other areas, but don't recognize a much higher priority than what they're spending the money for.

So having said that, I can see that I'm not going to get any results this year. I thought perhaps I could either compliment the minister into making some kind of commitment, or shame him into it. I didn't know which was the better, but I can see that it's not going to be done now. But I would plead: please keep it on the hot burner, because we do need it for both communities and the total central Fraser Valley.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Again, I agree that the Mount Lehman interchange is needed. It's a case of when can it be afforded.

With respect to the border crossing, the funds were available to allow the lower-cost alternative -- an alternative that resulted in a substantial improvement of the traffic pattern through the Sumas border crossing. The municipality has decided that they did not want to do it that way. But I believe we're still in some discussion with them, and it may turn out that at the end we will still do that for them.

P. Dueck: Just one more question. Is that money still available if they should change their mind?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Unfortunately the offer was made to them in the latter part of March when we had some surplus funds from the previous fiscal year. We had a fairly narrow window of opportunity, and they turned it down. That has slipped the situation into the current fiscal year where things are much tighter. We are continuing to discuss the situation with the municipality. Given the tightness of the situation, it may not be possible to proceed with the intermediate solution, but we are discussing it with them.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if we might truck on back to the rails then. Just a few questions, and I hope we'll be able to tidy up the rail aspect of this debate.

I'm just curious if you could fill me in, because my memory doesn't serve me too well on this. A few years back there was some concern about the maintenance of the buildings in Squamish where railcars were refurbished and that sort of thing. What's the current state of that sort of maintenance with B.C. Rail, and are there any plans for changes to the current arrangements for that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The refurbishing facilities in Squamish are busy refurbishing the moving stock of the railway, and there are plans that go on into the next four or five years for continuing work at those shops.

D. Symons: Those shops then are still under the control or still part of B.C. Rail? I had the impression that the employees had bought it out when there was....

Another question I have regards the rail line, and I'm not sure if this is B.C. Rail or what it comes under. The rail line that goes along Arbutus and then eventually heads out to Steveston through Richmond.... Years ago, as you mentioned earlier, it was part of the old B.C. Electric line, and then it was taken over by B.C. Hydro. Who owns it now? I'm curious because that's a possible rapid transit route. I realize this isn't related to your ministry.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It was a new one for me. It's the Vancouver and Lulu Island line, and it is owned by CP.

D. Symons: I have a couple of questions here from members who are in the other committee, and they have passed notes along to me, so I hope I get the questions the way they would like them to be asked. One of the members wants to know about the B.C. Rail line between Hope and Vancouver -- you referred to it earlier -- which is now Southern. How often is it used, and what's the state of repair on it? Is it in fairly constant use? Number of trips per day...?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You're referring again to what's now called the Southern Rail. It used to be B.C. Electric. The right-of-way is still ours. The track and the rolling stock is Southern Rail, again owned by the Itel Corporation of San Francisco. I would not want to comment on the condition of their track or roadbed.

D. Symons: Back to B.C. Rail, another question. A member whose interest is the mines wants to know what the tonnage might be for mineral products carried by B.C. Rail. I'm concerned about dollar value, tonnes and maybe percent of the cargo carried.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Virtually the sole mineral hauled is coal. It constitutes 42 percent in terms of revenues -- some six million tonnes hauled. If you'd like to know some of the commodities other than coal: lumber is 14 percent; pulp, 9 percent; miscellaneous forest products, about 6 percent; coal, 42 percent; wood chips, 18 percent; and all other commodities combined, about 11 percent. Those are the revenue tonnes by commodity.

D. Symons: Just a few last questions here. A concern has been expressed about property taxes on B.C. Rail property and whether the municipalities and areas receive taxes to help the municipality in relation to the property that the B.C. Rail has in various communities. Can you comment on that?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As a general policy B.C. Rail does not pay property taxes, but in some locations we pay some grants in lieu of property taxes. The general reasoning is that it is the construction of the rail and the service provided by the rail that permit the development of industry in various towns and communities along the way, and that is a very substantial benefit to the towns. We have tried to minimize costs in order to maximize the efficiency and profitability of the

[ Page 1060 ]

railway. So it's not as though the towns and cities involved do not realize substantial benefits; they do, from the very presence and activity of B.C. Rail. But no, as a rule we are not paying property taxes.

D. Symons: I suppose the same might be said if you have a pulp mill or some other industry in your community; it brings benefits to the town in the way of jobs and income, but I'm not sure it's always fair to the communities involved.

I'd like to move on to the Squamish area again and the interrelationship between the possible Squamish port development and the railhead for B.C. Rail there. Can you comment on what the project's future would be of both the port development and B.C. Rail's integration with it?

A. Charbonneau: I mentioned earlier today the Squamish estuary study that's going on. As time passes and as time permits, our negotiations with a variety of bodies -- including the town and the native bands -- will move toward the development of a deep-sea port there. We're quite interested in making that investment, but the entire project has to be developed with the cooperation of local bodies, all of the potential players and stakeholders. A long and perhaps difficult public process lies ahead of us. Our goal would be to develop a deep-sea port capacity there.

D. Symons: My final question regarding rail deals with B.C. Rail telecommunications, and they have a joint venture going, I gather. If you could just give me a rundown of the progress of that, whether this is going to be a successful venture, and what your plans are in the future for it.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Our present application to the CRTC has not yet been ruled on. We've been in the telecommunications business for some time and would like to proceed with further business development in that area, but we are awaiting the CRTC's ruling.

D. Symons: That begs just one more question, I guess, in that same vein. Is the telecommunications aspect of B.C. Rail then a money-making aspect of it? Will this joint venture, if it does go through and the federal government rules on that, increase its capacity to be in good financial condition -- money-making?

[3:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, it is profitable. And yes, if the joint venture is approved, we will have further business development, and that will be profitable.

L. Fox: I want to follow up on a question that dealt with grants to municipalities in lieu of taxation. As I understand it, at least, all other provincial corporations pay a grant that's equal to a taxation based on what the assessed value would be. In other words, rather than paying direct in taxation, which of course would also mean that if you paid it in the form of taxation you would be required to pay school taxes.... So to get away from that portion of the taxation, they pay a grant equal to what the taxation would be based on the assessed value. Is that consistent with B.C. Rail?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I guess we have to keep in mind that the province alone, first of all, contributed all of the capital to the construction of this line -- all taxpayer dollars that went into the construction of the line all the way. It's not as though it was a private corporation making money and being taxed property taxes on their operation. I'd also point out that on all of the industrial land along our system, the lessees do pay taxes on their leases. I'm not certain whether I've answered all of your questions.

L. Fox: With respect to your last comment, are those taxes on the land as well as the taxes the lessees pay.... Are they paying it on the land as well as on the improvements, or just on the improvements?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: On both.

L. Fox: I just want to come back to my original question, then I'll have that clarified. I'm sure the minister would understand that the BCBC buildings are also paid and built with taxpayers dollars. However, they do pay a grant in lieu of taxation which is based on the assessment which would equal taxation if it were to be taxed by municipalities. I don't understand the logic of how B.C. Rail is different from BCBC or B.C. Hydro or other Crown corporations. I know this has been an argument that has been put forward by municipalities up and down the line, because they are creating, at a substantial cost to themselves.... They're delivering service to your particular sites as well as to the employees of those sites.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's interesting to note again that the member of the third party is from the very same party that has turned down the municipalities on numerous occasions when they sought the right to impose property taxes on B.C. Rail. Am I correct in assuming that in the past you have also been raising this issue with your own party? However, I think the issue that is raised is a fair issue. Should B.C. Rail be paying property taxes? Our national railways pay property taxes. There are other elements and you've named one: BCBC do pay property taxes. I think the whole issue should be taken under advisement. It should be debated and analyzed -- probably through the Minister of Finance -- as to whether or not it might be proper for the government to move in that direction. The answers that I have given you are the answers as things stand today. I've attempted to give you the rationale behind that. I think the question is open, I think it's a fair question and I think it's something that our government should undertake a proper investigation of.

L. Fox: I'm sure the minister will recall, in fact knows, that I wasn't here in this House when those previous deliberations were taking place. If the minister wants to look at my record in terms of a municipal

[ Page 1061 ]

politician, you will find I, as other northern mayors, have criticized governments at all levels where the delivery of service to the municipalities, in our view, was not fair, irrespective of what government was in power. I am one of those. Perhaps that will reassure the minister. [Applause.] Great audience here.

I do appreciate and respect what you say, Mr. Minister, with respect that this is an issue that should be explored and addressed further. I'll pass that on to the municipalities that have argued so strongly in the past that they in fact should receive some taxation from the holdings that B.C. Rail has within their municipalities.

One final question: can you tell me, in finite terms, what the impact of the corporation tax is on B.C. Rail?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The corporate tax paid is $3 million a year.

Just to add a comment to my previous ruminations on the payment of property taxes: the members opposite will understand, of course, that as B.C. Rail is being asked to operate as a profit centre, if their costs of doing business go up, then of necessity their freight charges have to go up. As freight charges go up, we become marginally less competitive, which then feeds back all the way up the system toward making some of the products from the mills and mines we have been discussing here today more expensive and could actually give then, ultimately, back pressure to reduce economic activity in those areas.

It's a matter of moving money around. If we're going to move more money into the pockets of municipalities, that money has to come from someplace. It doesn't simply appear. It must come out of the pockets of the corporations that pay B.C. Rail to haul their products.

L. Fox: I almost believe that the minister read Hansard and used my argument that I used in opposing the 2 cents a litre increase in jet fuel, because that logic was indeed part of my argument when we argued that bill.

I have to ask -- and certainly your comments beg the question -- what kind of an impact this further burden of $3 million has on delivering services to the northern part of this province.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm a bit puzzled. It is a tax paid by profitable corporations. We expect them to be profitable. If they are profitable, there are taxes to be paid. So if we run it less efficiently or do whatever in order to not generate the profits, then I guess we won't pay the taxes. But we can't have one without the other.

L. Fox: I think the minister better meet with the Finance minister and get some advice as to what the application of this tax is. In fact, this capital tax has no bearing at all on profits of a company or a corporation. I'm really almost angry that he should give me such an answer.

My question specifically was: what impact would this $3 million have on delivery of service to the northern part of this province?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I hope I haven't created apoplexy over there. I misunderstood. I thought you said corporate tax, not capital tax. The impact of the capital tax that we originally brought in is $3 million, which will decrease the dividends that B.C. Rail is able to pay the government by $3 million.

C. Evans: I'm sure you are aware that the people of Nelson-Creston sometimes argue about various kinds of land use. But one area where industrial workers, persons concerned about the environment, small businesses and local government come together is on saving the railroads. We are losing railroads at an increasingly rapid rate in the West Kootenays. This summer we may make a park out of what used to be a railroad, or a transportation corridor, from Summit Lake to Sandon. We lost the railroad from Grand Forks to Castlegar a couple of years ago. Now there appears to be an application pending, and we'll lose the railroad from Slocan City to Nelson.

I have several questions about the railroad situation. The first one is: are there people in your ministry working on the question of rail abandonment who you could direct me to to do research?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, there are people in our rail policy section. I can arrange a meeting for you or obtain information on your behalf.

C. Evans: I would appreciate going to that meeting. The people who asked me to ask these questions were IWA members in Slocan City, three of whom were killed in a collision with a chip truck a year or so ago while trying to go to work. It is of particular concern to them that the product of their work six miles down the road could be killing their members on the highways. They would like to know if our government has considered changes to the taxation policy on the short spur lines adjunct to the mainline system, in order to perhaps lighten the load for CPR and make those runs more profitable.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Determining that kind of taxation is a federal responsibility, but the provincial impacts are considered.

C. Evans: Is there something members here could do to stir up the discussion on short-line operations for rail lines that are perhaps going to be abandoned? Is there a way that members could assist you in encouraging the CPR to see if there are people willing to lease the short-line, say from Slocan to Nelson?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The issues are dealt with by the National Transportation Agency and can be raised with that body. I'm not sure, though, if I've given the answer that you're looking for. Was there another element to it?

[4:00]

C. Evans: I guess the answer I'm looking for here is on how we can be advocates. As you know, the National Transportation guidelines have been changed, and it is

[ Page 1062 ]

now a great deal easier for a railroad to abandon service. I'm wondering if there are ways that members here or you, through your ministry, can generate small-business possibilities for people to lease the lines that the CPR is interested in abandoning, rather than letting the CPR simply abandon them.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I think that any time it would appear in the interest of the province to maintain a line that one of the majors is interested in getting rid of, it would seem to me that it quite clearly falls upon us to do what we can do in the way of promoting someone to take over the line. Whether or not we can become financially involved, of course, is another matter. Anytime we have an interest, we should not just idly stand by and let something happen. We can make attempts, particularly through this ministry, to influence the decisions of the National Transportation Agency.

C. Evans: I think that's precisely the answer I wanted, Mr. Minister -- that we could take a proactive position. Could your ministry supply me with a list, or do you think it would be possible to generate a list, of lines that the majors intend to abandon over the next few years in order that I might inform the MLAs who represent those areas?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, I believe we could do that. I'll make, perhaps, a small digression on behalf of the majors, if you will. I've looked at their total operating burden and compared it to the operating burden on competing American lines, and we're losing the war. As I recall, we're okay on personnel, on employment costs; we're competitive. But the American lines are operating under substantially lower tax regimes, particularly fuel tax regimes. As a result of that, we're seeing a certain bleed-off of business from the Prairies, sometimes with the assistance of governments, to the establishment of so-called inland ports. There's one in Shelby, Montana, and there's one, I believe, in North Dakota as well competing directly with our main lines to truck grain south, establish the grain-cleaning facilities and everything there, ship across on American lines and out through American ports. It's starting to have a fairly significant impact.

One thing that would help our major lines is the judicious abandonment of spur lines, particularly on the Prairies. Because the economies have changed over the past several decades, it now makes more sense to truck grain from a greater distance to the main line, or in other instances it would make more sense to have a small corporation actually operate the short-haul lines, feeding down to the main line. So I don't think that we should just automatically oppose spur line abandonment; we should look at them on a case-by-case basis and either bring in short-haul or bring in alternative means. Generally we have to seriously look at the overall transportation problem in western Canada or our majors are going to be squeezed to the point where they're not going to be able to offer a competitive service at all.

C. Evans: Does your ministry have figures? Can you tell me where I could go to research the question of how much it costs the province in extra wear and tear on the highway to take the rail traffic per carload and put it onto the people's highway system?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are very rough estimates available, but there's no hard data, unfortunately, to underpin such an analysis. It's a valid point, and the railway people, both provincially and federally, raise the issue constantly that they have to completely build and maintain their rights-of-way, their roadbeds, whereas the rubber tire industry uses the public. Of course, the rubber tire industry pays taxes through licences and through fuel and a variety of other ways, but I believe that the contention of the railway that there is a tilt one way is probably correct. Unfortunately, we don't have the detail, the breakdown, the means of analyzing just what the truck traffic implications are on the cost of our infrastructure. That is not to say that it wouldn't be worthwhile determining whether or not we could start to establish such a database so that a little further down the line we could make more rational decisions about our transportation system.

C. Evans: If I'm standing here next year, I'll again ask you -- and every year thereafter -- if we have the database, because I think it is in the interest of the people where I live that we gather that data.

The issue for some of us, and I don't think it's just in the West Kootenays -- there might be people representing other mountainous districts.... This is not like the Prairies; there isn't any other place to put the highway. That brings me to my next question. In the case of those rail lines that are abandoned because we simply cannot show an economic alternative, is it the policy of your ministry that we hang on to the base -- the rail system -- intact, in case sometime in the future the cost of fuel changes or the policy changes? Then we still have the rail line roadbed intact, not lost, and we could put the rail back.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As part of the abandonment process they have to tear up the ties and the track, but there are a variety of government departments that would then get involved in negotiation regarding the potential disposal of the right-of-way. Of course, the right-of-way would probably be owned by CN or CP, and they could choose to hang on to it; it would be their right. But if we see a provincial interest again, then Crown Lands, Environment, Lands and Parks and others would all get their oar in the water to try to influence again the way that the land or the right-of-way may be disposed of. However, there is no automatic procedure whereby the right-of-way reverts to the Crown or anything like that. It's not deeded over, unless something like that were to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

[ Page 1063 ]

C. Evans: I would like to suggest that we review that policy. I know that it's their land, the railroad's land. I know that they sell it, or Marathon Realty sells it. I would like us to review the policy and consider that your ministry, as the ministry responsible for transportation 50 years in the future, might say to the majors: "If you're going to sell that land, you sell it to us. We'll hold it in escrow for future generations, because we might need that right-of-way."

My last question is: are there places you could send me to look for safety studies about the impact on our constituents of moving industrial traffic, previously moved on the rail, onto the highway system, and the increased deaths per tonnage -- or is there any way to figure it out?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There's apparently some American data available under the Association of American Railroads comparing some safety issues on rail transport versus highway transport, but we don't have any home-grown data. We could make the source of that other information available to you.

C. Evans: This is really the last question, minister.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Hey, that's pretty neat. Nobody's ever heckled me here before. Way back at the first question, you said that you could arrange a meeting between myself and your rail policy people. Perhaps you could refer each of these other questions to them, and they could bring what data they have to the meeting. Could you tell me whether I would be allowed to bring citizens like these concerned IWA workers to the meeting as well?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Absolutely. Whoever you would wish to invite to the meeting is fine. If you will get in contact with me outside of the chambers or through my office, we'll facilitate the setting up of that meeting.

F. Gingell: I was fascinated, Mr. Minister, by your reference to the fact that compared to the American railroads we're losing the war. Going back to the question of the corporate capital tax, as the minister responsible for the B.C. Rail, which I understand does have to pay the corporate capital tax, and going back to an earlier question from the Minister of Finance at which time there was discussed the value of the coal line from Tumbler Ridge to Prince Rupert on which the province doesn't make any money, the number that was mentioned was roughly $600 million. How do you feel, as the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, that you will pay $1.8 million in 1992 in corporate capital tax on this asset that doesn't earn any money, and that you'll pay another $1.8 million in 1993 and another $1.8 million in 1994 ad infinitum unless the rate goes up and then it will cost you more? Would you, as the minister responsible for B.C. Rail facing this additional cost that has nothing to do with the profits that B.C. Rail earn, make representations and arguments to the Minister of Finance for him to repeal this tax?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As far as paying the tax goes, we will pay the tax just like any other good corporate citizen, because we realize the benefits that come from paying your taxes. If you wish to debate the relative merits of the tax, you'll have to take that up with the Minister of Finance.

F. Gingell: I will accept that challenge.

Mr. Minister, is your ministry responsible for the coal rail line from Roberts Bank, which I think goes back to somewhere in the mid-Fraser Valley where it joins up with the CP? Or did CP take that over on the breakup of the old the B.C. Hydro Rail?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's B.C. Rail, from a point in Cloverdale to Roberts Bank, a distance of some 23 miles.

F. Gingell: I intend to deal with the questions on the expansion to Roberts Bank and the implications for your ministry later on. But for the moment, on the rail line alone there has been substantial pressure from the municipality of Delta, which I can assure you is backed by the residents of Ladner and Tsawwassen, with regard to the rail crossing on Arthur Drive. Arthur Drive is the main road from Ladner to Tsawwassen, and it crosses that railway line. It is a very highly travelled road -- a lot of traffic, a very high traffic count -- on the one hand; and on the other hand, those trains are terribly long; they just go on forever and ever. I was wondering, Mr. Minister, if it is in the plans of B.C. Rail to construct appropriate overpasses there so we can get rid of this rather dangerous situation.

[4:15]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It would not be within a five-year time horizon, in all likelihood. We have pressing problems on the North Shore, and elsewhere on the system, that on a corporate priority basis would be of a more important nature. That does not in any sense downplay the legitimacy of your observations, the concern of the citizens that use that crossing and the inconvenience that it causes. It is, again, a matter of fiscal restraint. It would be a point that we would address when we are able to.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I was interested when you were saying earlier how important it is for B.C. Rail to sectionalize their operations and measure, naturally as any good businessman would, the profit from certain systems. I'd be most interested in the profits that B.C. Rail earns on that Roberts Bank line. Could you tell us, please?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The profit in the past fiscal year was $2.5 million. The profit is based on a formula. It's essentially a rent, and the rate is prime plus one, on a monthly basis.

[ Page 1064 ]

F. Gingell: How do you mean a formula and the rent based on prime plus one? Who is charging it to whom?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Just so that you understand first: we don't run trains on that. We own the right-of-way and the track, but CP or CN or Burlington Northern run trains on it and bear all of those costs. What we do is look at the capitalized value of that track and rent it to the users at an agreed-upon prime plus one per month. So it's a rent of our system.

F. Gingell: You say prime plus one per month. I presume you don't charge them prime plus one each month -- you just charge them one-twelfth of prime plus one per month. Not to be funny, but in dealing with an asset of that type and a well-known profitable run, which I think B.C. Electric Rail or B.C. Hydro Rail -- when they ran it -- knew was a very profitable run, that doesn't seem to me like a terribly good rate of return. Was there some other consideration given by CP or Burlington Northern to offset the exceptionally low rate?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The arrangement that I've just outlined to you was made in an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia 22 years ago, and is apparently renewable at the option of the users for an indefinite period, the rate being the prime plus one. Offhand I wouldn't feel that that was a particularly good deal. Anytime governments enter into contracts of this nature that are indefinitely renewable, I don't think they have tended their dollars very well. Nonetheless, that's the contractual situation we're in.

F. Gingell: So this arrangement goes back to the original deal when the province and the federal government agreed to allow the National Harbours Board to proceed and develop Roberts Bank, and the deal was made that B.C. Electric Rail -- as it was at that time -- would develop that railway line. It goes back to those original days, does it?

Further to the question -- because it's on the same thing -- is the amount on which the prime plus one is charged the original cost of the development of the line and the acquisition of the right-of-way? Or is it revalued every five, ten, 20 years for this to be charged on an updated valuation?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is essentially on the original cost, but when additional capital investment is put in from time to time, that is brought into the formula. Your understanding of how that originated was substantially correct.

L. Fox: I hadn't intended to rise again, but given that you made this statement to the member for Delta South just a few moments ago -- that you as B.C. Rail wish to be good corporate citizens and pay your fair share of taxes -- is that the new policy with respect to the municipal taxes along the B.C. Rail line?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: My previous words to you stand.

R. Neufeld: Just for clarification on an earlier question on the capital tax. You said that it would cost B.C. Rail approximately $3 million a year, but the subsidy would decrease by that same amount, so it's a nonentity. Is that correct, or did I misunderstand you?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The dividend that is paid at the end of the year will be lower due to whatever the capital tax is in that particular year. Does that answer your question?

R. Neufeld: Yes, it does.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It has a direct impact on the dividend paid.

D. Symons: I would like to rise and say that the questions from all the members on B.C. Rail have been answered. I would like to thank you on behalf of members on this side of the House for your being here today and assisting the minister in the answers to these questions. Thank you, sirs.

G. Wilson: I wonder, now that B.C. Rail is over, if we can come back to the matter of highways. In particular, my question has to do with capital construction. I wonder if the minister might explain the prioritization of budgets for capital construction, recognizing that the ministry has had its budget reduced in terms of expenditure. What was the rationale for the approval process of highways? Why did the ministry not undertake to complete construction that was already underway, when I understand it is embarking on new program construction in other areas?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The projects and rehabilitation projects that were chosen to continue were chosen entirely by staff with no input from myself at all. They chose them on the basis of longstanding priority lists that the ministry had worked up in each region of the province. The only instructions I gave were of the broadest nature, which were: (1) treat everybody fairly; (2) treat every region of the province fairly; and (3) in this time where we're going to have a substantial cut, make sure that we're distributing the work around the province as much as we can.

With respect to your question of why we are interrupting some projects while initiating others, I'm a bit puzzled. We're certainly not initiating any other major projects anywhere, and any of the minor projects, even that were ongoing.... There are elements, for example, of multi-year contracts that we're continuing. There are elements where we're filling in a gap to allow a project to be delivered. But we haven't undertaken, to my knowledge, any new projects. So perhaps you could clarify for me which new projects you had in mind.

G. Wilson: Let me be a little more specific then. If we talk about the Gibsons bypass, which clearly had to be, in terms of long-standing promise and obliga-

[ Page 1065 ]

tion.... This highway construction project has been on the books by way of promise for well over 20 years. Finally, under the previous regime, it received funding for phase one, which is essentially a section that commences construction from North Road toward the ferry terminal. Phase two construction was scheduled to be underway this year, and phase three was scheduled to be completed in the subsequent year. That project has now been terminated -- effectively creating a highway that goes nowhere. You can't get to it or from it; it essentially is going nowhere.

It is my understanding that there is a proposition for construction of a fast-lane commuter lane to facilitate cross-border shopping and a new facility -- a building in construction -- that's being set up on the border with respect to that. I wonder if you could verify, first of all, the cross-border shopping lanes and the capital construction that has gone into that. And could you explain why the Gibsons bypass is not proceeding?

[4:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm quite puzzled. According to the figures I have, for the Powell River-Sunshine Coast-Gibsons bypass, phase one, we're entering into some $4.59 million of construction. That's the 1992-93 allocation, and that is out of a grand total of some $52 million on minor highway capital. So in terms of the 75 electoral districts, it's a pretty fair allocation in a tight year.

With respect to the Sumas crossing -- I presume that's the one you're referring to -- the understandings that had been reached between the federal government and the previous administration were to spend some $5 million on our side of the border to facilitate -- as far I'm concerned -- cross-border shopping. I did not permit that project to go ahead last year. What I've offered them instead is a fairly minor amount of money to rejig a couple of right-hand or 90-degree turns in order to make things just a bit safer. But it's a very minor allocation.

I'll get out that specific number for you. But by no means are we expending significant dollars in regard to that border crossing. As I've said, I essentially abrogated unilaterally an understanding with the previous administration and to not go ahead with the project.

G. Wilson: The $4 million-plus that you refer to is currently committed in capital construction on phase one. I understand that is going to be finished, and much of that work will be done in the latter part of the spring and early summer of this year. That phase one doesn't connect to the ferry terminal; in fact, it doesn't connect anywhere of any substance.

When the mayor of Gibsons and council met with the minister, the minister assured them that there would be moneys put toward a connector to make sure that the phase one construction that has already cost the taxpayers $4.6 million or $4.7 million -- I don't know what the figure is; you have the figure there in terms of the $4.6 million plus or minus -- was going to be in place. We're now told that phase two, which is the rather critical section that connects the ferry terminal to phase one, is not proceeding. I wonder if the minister can tell us why that is so when the engineering work has already been done, the design work is all complete, much of the purchase of property is complete, and much of the stream work for maintenance of the environment is done. Why was that not a part of this budget, given that the project is well underway and that we're going to be stuck with a highway that is basically not usable. It's much like an airstrip, if it wasn't so steep.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are legitimate demands for roadway improvements in every electoral district of the province. Every mayor out there could easily put on the table millions to tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of needed improvements. We have an extremely tight budget, an extremely tight allocation. I have seen to it that that allocation we do have is spread around quite evenly, quite fairly, without regard to political party or to region of the province. If you're complaining that there was not enough spent there, every other member could give me a similar complaint. We are doing the best that we can with the allocation that we have.

Unless you're willing to stand up and give up some other allocation from the government to your constituency, be it for schools or hospital.... I'll let you choose what you might want to give up. Or, perhaps you could write me a letter suggesting that we should have increased the deficit by $100 million in order to facilitate further construction. We have decided that we are not going to do that. We've made a tough, tough choice to pick up from the fiscal mess left by the previous administration, and the transportation mess left by the previous administration. We've made some tough decisions. We're willing to live with those decisions. But in the process of carrying through on those decisions, we have done so in a fair, open and honest manner.

G. Wilson: My concern isn't whether this is my riding, whether it's another's or what political party happens to represent the riding. My concern here is one of fiscal responsibility, and being sensible in the way we budget our money. Contractors who are currently at work on that project have indicated to me that not completing phase two means rehabilitation work will have to be done and new contract work going back on when that project is eventually funded, since everybody who is currently on-site working and doing project construction work will have to remove all of their equipment because they're all going to be going away. It is likely to increase the cost of that project by as much as 20 percent, depending on how long a project is left uncompleted. So my question to this minister is: with respect to that specific project, in terms of prioritizing your capital construction, how much consideration was given to the additional cost that will be incurred if you haul off all your contractors, and their equipment and material, and do not complete the project -- especially in light of the fact that this is now a project that doesn't connect anywhere? It's a highway that doesn't even have marginal use for the $4 million that you spent in the last fiscal year.

[ Page 1066 ]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We had a trade-off to make. Were we going to sink our available funds into new infrastructure, whether it was completing projects or starting new projects, or were we going to put that money into rehabilitation? The advice of my ministry, the auditor general and Peat Marwick was that we were not spending enough money on the rehabilitation of our existing infrastructure. So in a time of scarce fiscal resources, we have applied those resources where we will get the best return. If we allow the existing system to deteriorate, we will pay far more on the reconstruction of some of that infrastructure than on rehabilitation at a timely point now. So we have closed down uncompleted projects.

We have sections of roadway that connect to nowhere. If we had had an additional $300 million, I might have been able to address all of those problems and a few more. If I had had $2 billion or $3 billion, I might have started to make a real dent in the transportation problems of British Columbia. But I don't. I had a grand total of about $350 million to apply. I've chosen to apply $180 million to rehab and $175 million to complete the most pressing projects around the province. We've done it, again, in a fair way. We've done it in a fiscally responsible way.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted that the minister has brought up the question of rehab. If there was ever an example of a major highway in British Columbia that is in desperate need of rehabilitation, I would suggest that the minister might want to drive Highway 101, especially the section that is from the Pender Harbour turn-off, right through the ferry and on to Lund. Never has there been such a highway in British Columbia. It's a 1940s highway carrying 1990s traffic. If there was a shift to rehabilitation of the highways, perhaps the minister could tell us why another project, previously approved, where land acquisition has been done, where there was scheduled work to commence this spring, which was the Rat Portage Hill section, which was number one on the priority list in terms of the regional transportation planning committee.... After buying and preparing land and doing the design work, why did that not get funded? It was certainly something that right up to January of this year was anticipated by staff in that region to be a project that was desperately needed because of the number of fatalities and because it is generally considered, by all engineering standards, to be an extremely dangerous passing lane. In fact, I would argue it isn't a passing lane; it's a pull-out that passes for a passing lane.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As the television ad says, this is not difficult to understand. When you're paring down a budget by $180 million, you have to postpone some construction. You have to interrupt and delay projects. I have done that. I have done it all over the province. I've fully recognized the needs out there. I've fully recognized the safety concerns and the environmental and social implications. The gravest problems in the province are not in your constituency. The severest safety and environmental problems are in the lower mainland and on the Vancouver Island Highway. We have grave problems on the Trans-Canada through the Rockies, up the Golden hill. We have grave transportation problems down the Okanagan with tremendous congestion and accident records all over the place.

If you can suggest where we can wave the magic wand and find the hundreds of millions, if you can point out what part of the Education budget we can cut, if you can point out what part of the Health budget we can cut, do so. If you want to make a statement that we should have run the deficit up another couple of hundred million to do this, do so. But don't try to imply that we can do all of these difficult things and still be fiscally responsible. We've made the tough choices, and I'm willing to live with those tough choices.

G. Wilson: It's a sad day when the Minister of Transportation and Highways leans to the Leader of the Opposition to try and figure out how he should have sorted out priorities and expenditures in the Highways budget. I'll tell you that the problem we have here is with respect to prioritization of expenditures of dollars; it's not a question of who has the most hazardous highway. It's a question of what is a fiscally sensible way to proceed given that certain land acquisitions have already been taking place -- i.e, you have already made investments -- and given that there is obviously a hierarchy of projects that had been established through regional districts, through local planning, through local regional planning processes; and given that there has to be a proposition that your ministry is going to adequately and properly fund those projects that were already scheduled for construction in this year; and given that that investment has already taken place.

Earlier on the minister said he would be happy to give me the amount of money that's being spent on the Sumas crossing. I wonder if he might do that. Could he give me a comparative analysis of how much it would cost to straighten out Rat Portage Hill, which is an area that has had a significant number of fatalities and very serious traffic accidents.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I don't have the figure to a great accuracy, but the rejigging of a couple of intersections on the Sumas crossing might be running in the order of $100,000, or something like that. It's a truly minor expenditure.

[4:45]

G. Wilson: I'd be very anxious to see exactly what the expenditures are. The "rejigging" as the minister puts it.... This may be a new term in engineering that I'm not familiar with; I thought it was a fishing term, something that perhaps the minister might want to spend some time at given that his budget is so low. But it seems to me that if we're going to look at priorities in expenditure, those are the kinds of details that the minister should be aware of, because it is precisely that kind of prioritization in expenditure and planning that the people of British Columbia want some answers to.

It strikes me that if we are going to look at the overall development of the economy, which is what clearly seems to preoccupy this minister, it must be clear that

[ Page 1067 ]

we're not going to see economic growth and development in communities that are desperately needing it unless there's some investment in infrastructure that allows the economy to grow. I would argue that those comparable figures between Rat Portage Hill and the Sumas crossing are figures that we would like to see here, and if the minister can't provide them today, perhaps he could do so by providing them to me in writing so that we can look at that comparison.

I have a question with respect to highway rehabilitation. Can the minister tell us how much money was spent on the highway from the ferry terminus in Saltery Bay to Lund in the last year and how much has been committed for highway rehabilitation on that section of highway this year? I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to drive that section of the highway, either during the day when it's relatively safe, or at night when it's not.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would imagine that your amateur acting career has given you quite a handle on feigned indignation. You do a marvellous take.

I have not driven the highway that you are speaking of; at least I haven't in the last ten years. I certainly don't recall from the one time that I did drive up that way, but I think it's irrelevant, as a matter of fact.

You seem to keep coming back to the notion that somehow money can be made available, somehow we were to look in one of the cupboards of the old government and find a billion dollars in there and say: "Oh, here we are. We're going to now solve the transportation problems." If we're going to spend money, we have to perhaps raise money. If you want to suggest that we increase taxes, do so. We can borrow money. If you want to tell me that we should increase the deficit, do so. Or we can cut in some of the other areas.

In order to get on top of a difficult fiscal situation, we have a net cut from last year in 15 ministries. There are three ministries that we spent additional moneys in: Education, Health and Social Services. If you want to indicate which ones of those you would like to carve money out of so we can spend more on highways, please do.

G. Wilson: It is interesting that the three ministries that have received additional money.... In Health there's a major crisis because this government can't solve the strike. In Education there are teacher layoffs all over the province, and this area is in major difficulty. In Social Services we've only just begun to see the crisis that's going to occur in social service delivery as we start to see more and more people hit the unemployment roles, because this government has cut every single ministry that has an opportunity to increase the revenue by expanding the wealth of the province. We talk about the kind of commitment to economy; I find this to be quite unacceptable.

Clearly if the minister doesn't have a handle on the expenditure of dollars on rehab in these sections, and if those figures are not available, perhaps he could also provide that by way of written comment.

Could the minister now talk a little bit about this government a policy to build a second superferry and about it being a proposition for the transportation of the provincial public. Can he tell us how much money has been committed to the expenditure of dollars on the ferry terminus, on either side, to accommodate these new rush hours that are going to be created every time a superferry docks? What kind of proportional expenditure of Highways' construction money has gone into dealing with these new traffic problems that are going to occur when these superferries come on-stream?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the member opposite would read the paper once in a while, he might have heard that there's a transportation study going on in the lower mainland. We're going to be looking to the municipalities there, to the regional district, for their advice on exactly how we should start to solve some of those problems. I have met with the mayor of Delta on a couple of occasions to discuss her problems and the problems of that community and have gotten good cooperation from them in terms of defining what it will be. In the capital region you would also be aware that there is a moratorium at the request of the local governments, with the exception of a couple of intersections, and we are proceeding on those two intersections.

G. Wilson: I was rather hoping I would get more from the minister than I did from the newspaper. However, it seems that's not the case.

The question of a commitment to superferries is something that has already taken place. This is under construction. Very soon the superferries are going to be a reality -- be that a good idea or a bad idea is not at debate here. However, I am concerned that within this year's budget there does not seem to be any provision for additional moneys or moneys of any kind outside of a handful of dollars that may be committed to studies, which seems to be the solution of the government opposite when it can't make a decision. What is the proposition with respect to this minister to a commitment to those communities in which the superferries will dock for the provision of some kind of service, so that we don't end up with the same kind of problems we find in Horseshoe Bay? When you get to a weekend sailing there, you have lineups all the way along the Upper Levels Highway because of the inadequacy of the services provided. With the superferries, you're going to have increased expectation, increased ridership, and you're going to have a major traffic problem every time it docks.

What is the proposal that this minister is putting forward in this budget to start to build an alleviation of those problems, given that it's going to take time to do the engineering and design work, to buy the land and to get the highway constructed?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member opposite may think it's best to operate on the basis of the whims of a petty tyrant in order to determine what should be done when and how, what the design should be and

[ Page 1068 ]

where the road should be. That is not the way this government proceeds.

The municipalities involved have asked us to wait until the studies they are participating in are done so that we have the benefit of their wisdom and their recommendations before we start to construct a new infrastructure. I think that is quite a reasonable approach. Perhaps the approach of the member opposite would be to ignore the input and the will of the local municipalities and the local politicians, to brush them aside and to simply go in and start building blacktop. I don't think that's quite the way we work in the modern world.

We've entered a period, I hope, of considerable consultation between levels of government. It is the regional district that has requested the moratorium. If you, in the circumstances of being government -- which will probably never happen -- wish to brush them aside and proceed in a dictatorial fashion, and if that is your wont, then go ahead and believe that. I don't.

They have asked us for the moratorium. We have granted the moratorium, and we will proceed when they are ready with their recommendations.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, the minister certainly pushes the patience of this member, I can tell you. I recognize that this minister is a rookie and new to his job. Maybe he's not aware that there are already transportation committees underway. I am chairman of a regional district transportation committee and have participated in transportation committees for the last five years. Under the previous government, regional transportation committees have been working at prioritizing their highway construction budgets for the last five years.

It seems that this minister has somehow landed from Mars and has come upon this new world in which there has never been any process of planning until he became minister. We have been planning for the last five or six years. The proposition of what various municipalities want is quite clear. To suggest that this minister is going to do a consultation process and that we should feel confident in that....

Clearly the municipality of West Vancouver had no such consultation when the trial balloon of all-night sailings for the ferries was proposed -- something that was going to have a major transportation impact on West Vancouver, Horseshoe Bay and Lions Bay. There was no consultation there. So what faith have we got in this minister when he doesn't even understand that under the former government, there was such a consultation process and that there is such a series of priorities and recommendations?

Those priorities and recommendations are fairly specific and clear, one of which, I would point out, dealing with the rush hours that come off the ferries, is called the Gibsons bypass, which was prioritized and was under construction and which this ministry has now cut.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell that not only does this minister not understand that expenditure on highways is an investment and not simply an expense, but it seems to me that he doesn't understand that the concept of planning takes some time and some dollar commitment. It's going to take a little more than some cheap one-liners to try to pass the buck to the opposition, which is doing its job in this instance by trying to get the minister to at least tell the people what he has in this budget to put in place the capital construction that is going to be desperately needed if we are to accommodate the travellers from Vancouver Island to the lower mainland.

I wonder if he can give me a little more than simply empty comments about consultation. What is the overall plan?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: You may have been chairman of a transportation study, but you weren't chairman of the transportation study of the Capital Regional District. That is the district you were asking about -- the impact of ferries and what would happen when the new superferries come on. The superferries, number one, are not my jurisdiction; you should ask those questions of the hon. Finance minister. The superferries transit from Delta. I spoke of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Transport 2021. They have asked us to wait until they have the results of the study. That's one terminus.

There is another terminus related to your question, which is Swartz Bay. That is part of the Capital Regional District. That district has asked us for a moratorium; we have granted the moratorium. So I've answered your questions which relate to what are we going to do when the terrible traffic flows following the implementation of the superferries. I've told you what happens at either terminus. We will do it when the answers and the recommendations are available, and then we will proceed as our fiscal resources permit.

G. Wilson: It will be interesting. The Minister of Highways is obviously telling us that the original plan for superferries -- which indeed is Delta but the second terminus was Nanaimo, not Swartz Bay -- has obviously changed. Maybe the B.C. Ferries Corporation is now going to take these superferries through Active Pass and try and put them into Swartz Bay; it should be an interesting proposition for transportation. If that's the case, the question is with respect to the superferries that may be in fact routed into Nanaimo. What is the minister doing specifically to assist Nanaimo with respect to the development of highways and facilities that are going to accommodate the people of Nanaimo?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm pleased to again bring the member opposite up to date on news that's about three or four months old. I sat down with the mayor of Nanaimo and several members of the council; I listened to their representations in support of the inner route. I have discussed the matters of the inner versus the outer route with members of my ministry, and announced that the inner route would proceed. That is what the mayor and council of Nanaimo wished. We will be proceeding on it again as fiscal resources permit.

[ Page 1069 ]

G. Wilson: So you can tell us, then, that there is no commitment for planning, for design work, for any kind of construction work at this time in either the terminus at Swartz Bay, the terminus at Tsawwassen or the terminus in Nanaimo, that there are no current plans underway to put in place a program of expenditures either in this year or.... Presumably the planning would have to be accommodated in this year to be able to get construction underway, so that when the superferries come on there is going to be some highway built on either end for those ferries to be able to accommodate the rush-hour traffic you're going to create every time they dock.

[5:00]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm certainly happy that the 40 or 50 mayors that I've dealt with around the province have a little more appreciation for fiscal policy than the member opposite. The mayor of Nanaimo is pleased and understands the difficult situation we're in. We're proceeding in the direction that she has requested. We're dealing on an ongoing basis with a variety of mayors in the Capital Regional District. They understand the situation that we're in. We are proceeding with the Lands End interchange; it will be operational before the superferries commence. We are proceeding with the initial work -- partially at the request of the mayor of Saanich -- for the McKenzie interchange. We are proceeding with initial design at the Thetis Lake interchange, and have good cooperation with that mayor. On the Tsawwassen side, we have good cooperation with the mayor there as well. We have agreed to study some specific intersection problems that she has identified. Further, I've met with the chairman of the Vancouver Port Corporation and the mayor of Delta to discuss the impact that that may have on her community, and again received indications of her cooperation in these matters. I'm quite pleased to inform the member opposite that in my dealings with all the mayors all over the province they have understood the need to get the deficit under control. They have appreciated the straightforward approach, and the fact that I have talked to them directly to give them the bad news for this fiscal year. It's very easy for the member opposite to stand and posture about how much money he would spend on this or that when the member opposite, of course, has no responsibilities.

D. Symons: Just continuing on with the questions of the previous member regarding Nanaimo, there seems to be some concern in the city of Nanaimo about the possible decision to continue with the Departure Bay ferry terminal without community consultation, and the serious longstanding concerns associated with that operation. The road network is woefully inadequate for that facility. You made comments about consultation. I have here a letter from the mayor of Nanaimo dated April 9, 1992, which outlines the city's concerns about a potential decision to remain at the Nanaimo ferry terminal, Departure Bay, without any consultation with the local community about the province's plans to deal with the serious and longstanding concerns associated with this operation.

I remind you that the Nanaimo terminal, Departure Bay, is the only major terminal located within the core of the host municipality's residential area, and that the provincial road network to the facility is woefully inadequate. Obviously, this city is terribly concerned, and it's the roads as well as the ferry terminal that are a concern to them. If you could comment, sir....

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe that you should put that question to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: I find it inconceivable that you're going to put a ferry dock in, and the Highways minister is not somehow connected with the decisions to do this -- that you should refer me to.... The roadways leading to the terminal are a concern to them. Where the terminal is, is going to be a concern. But the roadway that goes from the inner route down to the ferry terminal and get's that traffic up into the city is a Highways responsibility, not Ferries.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: As I understood the letter as you read it, there was a complaint of lack of consultation regarding the continued use of the Departure Bay terminal. I suggested that the minister responsible for that is the Minister of Finance. You should raise that question with that minister.

D. Symons: If we could continue on this just for one more question, regardless of that aspect that you just mentioned, it's going to affect the roadways within the community of Nanaimo. I don't know if you have been in contact with the city of Nanaimo. I'm sure they've expressed this concern to me, and they would also have expressed it to you: it's the roadways they are concerned about, and the traffic in the city of Nanaimo from the ferry terminal. Whether the consultation is with B.C. Ferries or with the Minister of Highways, they want to know that there's going to be some action taken so that whenever the ferry goes to either of those terminals, the roadways will be in place to handle the traffic safely through that community.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I agree that they have tremendous traffic woes in Nanaimo. Traffic counts on some of the streets are up to levels that approach the lower mainland. I've had the picture painted quite thoroughly for me by the mayor and an ex-alderperson from the area. I've had three meetings with representatives, and I'm well aware of the problems.

If the terminal remains at Departure Bay for a period of time, we will have to work with the city of Nanaimo to make what improvements we can in the highway infrastructure to tie that in with the inner route, in order to address those problems. But they are problems of a very major magnitude -- in the magnitude of several hundred million dollars. They will have to be tackled and solved over a period of several years, and we will do so in consultation with the mayor and council.

[ Page 1070 ]

A. Cowie: Regarding the relationship between planning for ferries and planning for roads, obviously in Delta you have to do both at the same time. I could never understand why Ferries was taken out of Highways and put into Finance in the first place. It should be integrated with Highways.

Can the minister guarantee that no ferries will be docking in Tsawwassen prior to improvements at least at Highway 17 and the road leading to Highway 99? At those intersections, especially where the roads come out of Ladner and Highway 99, it's absolutely intolerable at the present time. You sometimes have to wait for four lights at Highway 17 and Ladner Trunk Road.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: In the coming few years -- and some, I believe, this year -- there will be some intersection improvements, generally speaking minor improvements, along the existing Highway 17. But in the long run we have to work toward an entirely new Highway 17 from near the end of the causeway and connecting to Highway 99 at a different point altogether. That will be the way in which the problems will be solved. We won't be investing too much along the existing route, because that would be money lost in the long run.

A. Cowie: I still haven't got an answer to the question. My main concern is whether there will be additional ferries docking at Tsawwassen prior to any improvements, whether it's a new road or whether intersection improvements are made. The present situation is absolutely intolerable.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There will be minor intersection improvements made before the superferries start to dock. But they will certainly be in operation long before we can deliver a new Highway 17.

A. Cowie: I will leave further questions on that particular matter to my colleague from Delta South.

I have a question regarding Ladner, which relies solely on the intersection of Highway 17 and the Ladner Trunk Road to get all the traffic out in the morning into Vancouver. All the traffic comes out that route. For a number of years Delta has been planning for another exit. That exit was planned near Captain Cove on a flyway over the freeway and around the Town and Country hotel. Is there any consideration of possibly getting at least a second exit, so that there will not be a delay of sometimes four lights in the morning?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The problems in that area really cannot be resolved without tackling the tunnel first. We can take the tunnel up to six lanes through another tube, essentially. Then we could look at improvements to the access from Ladner. At the same time we would have to, on the overall project, look at the revised or the new Highway 17 coming around to tie in to the 99 and hence through the expanded, or six-lane, tunnel. It's, again, a very, very large project, and on the tried and true theory of the last week of floating trial balloons, this might be one area in which I might contemplate borrowing money in order to proceed on a project of this magnitude and contemplate the possibility of tolls to pay for the sinking fund.

A. Cowie: Can you confirm that it is possible, in fact, to build another tunnel to the east of the present tunnel? There have been rumours lately that it's not possible to do that because you would get a pop-out of the present tunnel if you did that. Those studies have been going on for a number of years, and I wonder if there's any conclusion and, in fact, if it is technically possible to do that.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Engineers can do anything. That is a flippant answer. The answer is: it can be done. There are probably going to be many technical considerations in doing it, but there's no conceptual reason why an additional tube couldn't be put in, upstream or downstream.

A. Cowie: Well that's helpful, because I'd heard rumours otherwise. I'm glad it is possible to do that.

We all know that Vancouver doesn't want a freeway system; the citizens of Vancouver don't want a freeway system. So with this increased traffic, we've got it all nicely, smoothly operating now -- lots of traffic moving through in whatever number of years these improvements happen, and it's all heading down toward Vancouver. What are we going to do? Are there any plans at all? Is there any cooperation with the city of Vancouver going on right now to deal with that situation, other than this study by the GVRD?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: A great deal of the traffic is not heading downtown, although a good deal of it is. But much of the growth and development, of course, is out to the east, in the south in Delta, and in the northeast out in the Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge areas. Part of the reason, the real driving force behind the Transport 2021 study, is to look at those overall growth rates throughout the region, and to look at the kind of transportation system we should be bringing in to service it. I think that we should be very careful in choosing a proper mix of public transit, rapid transit and commuter rail, along with judicious improvements to the infrastructure leading into Vancouver -- namely, the bridges and tunnels that surround the whole core of the area. We don't want to solve it by simply laying down blacktop and building flying ramps. It's a combination that's going to be required, and it's going to take a great deal of money. That's why I've been talking about using capitalization and the possibility of tolls. Even then, it's going to be a decade-long process to attack these problems.

[5:15]

A. Cowie: The problem I have is that, both in South Surrey and in Delta, the citizens and the councils have for years used as the reason you can't develop housing is that the road system can't take it; the tunnel won't take it. Then along come more ferries which generate far more traffic than any development would have ever contemplated. So that excuse just can't go on. Highway planning has to be integrated with land use planning

[ Page 1071 ]

and public transit. I'm glad you recognize the linkage between public transit and highway planning. My colleague is here from South Delta, and I want to leave those specific questions in South Delta to him, when he gets the gist of where we're at.

There will be ferries, and there will be minor intersection improvements, but there won't be any major works at all. The ferries will in fact come, and there will be more congestion. That's going to happen. My question, then, is: in the long-term planning, since we're looking east -- and I agree most of the growth is east; and this traffic is probably destined to go south as well as to Vancouver -- where in the scope of timing would another crossing of the Fraser River be contemplated, one that would serve the added industrial area that's inevitable in Delta along River Road? It's the only area in the lower mainland that has a great deal of industrial potential. Where are we at with the inevitable crossing that will be required to Richmond, Vancouver, where that would link?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Other than increasing the capacity of the tunnel -- the Deas Island crossing -- there's nothing else on the horizon in terms of an additional crossing of the main arm of the Fraser through this area. There's a bit of pressure, not a great amount, for a crossing up at the Albion ferry; but that is a $200 million job, and I would have to be really convinced that it would be desirable to do that. So, other than the enhancements in increasing capacity at Deas Island, there are no further crossings contemplated at this time.

A. Cowie: I know for a fact that for the last five to ten years Richmond has reserved a right-of-way along the extension of Boundary Road in Vancouver. I took it that that would probably mean there would be some kind of a crossing there some day. I guess they're doing that on their own, and they are not coordinating that with the ministry.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The area of which you are speaking would, of course, be a crossing of the north arm, and I was thinking of the crossing of the middle or main arm. Whatever Richmond is doing there, they are doing on their own hook. It is not a provincial road or part of the provincial road system. If they are bent on an additional bridge, perhaps in concert with Vancouver, we might -- outside possibility -- take a look at it as something that, for our own purposes, we might want to make a partial investment in. But the Minister of Transportation is not looking at an additional crossing there.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in the estimate debates on a very important ministry. I might say that I'm always comforted when the Minister of Transportation and Highways comes from the interior of the province. I hope that eventually that comfort spells out and proves to be true. At the present time I'm more concerned than comforted.

The minister has made a number of interesting statements, and I'd like to discuss some aspects of them. First of all, from my perspective -- and this is a common and shared vision that I think all of us in the interior have, and W.A.C. Bennett was the first one who really saw the connection and the potential -- the potential and vitality of the province is connected with two fundamental elements. One is energy -- the two-rivers policy -- and the other major one is the area that you are responsible for, our transportation systems which tie all regions in the province together and create abundant economic opportunities for all citizens.

Fundamentally, all of us in this Legislature are concerned about the same thing: strengthening the economy and providing the cash flow to do the necessary things that government has to do. You mentioned the services. Health, Social Services, Housing and certainly Education are key ministries that we have to provide cash flow for. But we can only do that with a strong economy. You understand that just as well as I understand it. I believe that all members in the House are committed to strengthening the economy of the province.

We know that the growth, development and wealth of all areas of British Columbia -- especially in the lower mainland and in the Victoria area -- are dependent on the transportation systems that serve the rest of the province. So your ministry is a very vital and important ministry in the future of the British Columbia. I know and you know that the quality of life for all British Columbians is directly impacted by your particular ministry.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I remind you of it all the time.

C. Serwa: Well, that's excellent. I like the sound of the commitment as it's coming. I hope it keeps coming; it has a long way to move.

British Columbia had the best economic performance of any province in Canada during this last recessionary period. Again, that was on the basis of the energy of our people, our natural resources, and our freedom to move. Our transportation systems again ensured that we did better than any other province. Hon minister, your constituency is dependent on resource-extraction industries. You know full well and appreciate what highways and the transportation system do for the economy of your own community and, with that in mind, what they're actually doing for the strength of the entire economy in British Columbia. I don't think that anything has been an abundant revelation to you. I see you nodding, smiling and agreeing, and I'm very happy about that.

The minister briefly opened up the topic.... He was looking for funding alternatives. I am pleased to give you some funding alternatives, because I really believe in what your ministry has tried to do. I'm looking for a ministry that can count on stability so that year-by-year in their major capital projects, they can do their planning so it's cost-effective and efficient. I'm looking for major capital funding that can be assured as much as possible so that the contractors out there can buy the right amount of iron and continue to provide realistic and competitive prices in moving the rock or moving

[ Page 1072 ]

the material to build our roads. So that's very important.

Now how can we find this money? Where is this money hiding? The minister said it might be underneath a desk, a billion dollars or something like that from the previous administration, and he mentioned a $1.8 billion deficit that he's very concerned about. That's mighty small compared to the $2 million-plus deficit that is going to occur this year.

But where might we find that money? Well, first of all, $300 million went into welfare rather than going out towards workfare, where it should have gone. People in British Columbia don't want welfare; they want jobs. We have an industrious community of people in the province, and we're looking for economic activity and development and jobs for people. So that's $300 million there.

What's in the provincial budget this year? Yes, indeed, $1 billion extra for public sector wage increases and, heaven help us, 1,500 more FTEs. We've got a billion dollars there. We're up to 1.3. You can do a lot of work with $1.3 billion. But there's more. The minister has asked for responses in this field, and I'm pleased to respond.

Where can we find another $300 million? I'll tell you. We could have left Bill 82 as it was. All across Canada public sector settlements have averaged 2 percent, and education was capped at 4.5 percent. What we've done is expose this provincial government to $300 million extra expenditure over the next two years. Now we're up to $1.6 billion.

And there's more. We could have saved $200 million if we didn't go ahead with this fixed-wage policy that you've instituted. Over the next two years it's $200 million, minister. And so we're up to 1.8. If we want a little bit more we could look at some of the money that has been spent on patronage appointments and politically motivated firings and the costs incurred by those politically motivated firings -- hundreds of thousands of dollars, Mr. Chairman. And there's the $1 million that was let out for a very important report -- without tendering, by the way, but maybe they were the only takers. I refer to that as the Peat Marwick Thorne manifesto. That manifesto seems to have all the answers that we've been searching for for years. We could look at that small investment of a million dollars for the 16 volumes that provide all the answers for government, and we could let all the top civil servants go. We don't need them anymore, because we've got the Peat Marwick Thorne manifesto. We could save billions of dollars, minister. Just what could we do with that? Boy, we'd really have this province just a-humming.

An Hon. Member: You're on a roll.

C. Serwa: Yes, it's really exciting. I think that you have the commitment, I really believe that the commitment is there. In all seriousness, rather than continuing in that vein.... In all seriousness, your ministry is incredibly important, not only to Vancouver Island, which does need the highways system really improved, but through all of the interior. The Cariboo highway is some 40 or 45 years old now, and it has only been resurfaced and repaved.

Hon. L. Boone: Why didn't you do something about it?

C. Serwa: Well, that's good. That's good. It needs upgrading.

Hon. L. Boone: Come on! You expect us to clean up your mess.

C. Serwa: I spoke about that....

I'm pleased that the Minister of Government Services is here.

Hon. L. Boone: It can't be done.

C. Serwa: As a matter of fact, she sang a different tune when I brought up that topic with our government several years ago. She was quite supportive of my suggestion. I believe that we need Coquihalla-standard systems going north and south in this province and at least three latitudes going east and west. Then this province will really start to hum. When the government shows continuing faith in the vitality of this province, we will get more and more investment and more job opportunities for our people. That's what we're looking for.

You are looking at alternatives. You are looking at tolls and you are looking at capitalization systems, and I think that's good. I think that's what we have to look at, but I have some concerns about that. My concerns are simply this: not one member of your government is interested in investing in something that produces dividends, that encourages economic activity in the province. Your government is committed to spending money without any hope of receiving economic dividends, and I'm really concerned about that.

If we put tolls on the highway systems, what will happen to those tolls? I'll tell you what's going to happen to those tolls. They're going to disappear into the black hole where you're pouring these billions of dollars that I've referred to. They'll disappear into that same black hole. There is an insatiable appetite. You won't have the resources to get more money, so you've got to start investing in things that will produce dividends for the province. Highways and Transportation creates jobs and creates investment and economic opportunity for all British Columbians. It's the greatest economic development tool we have in the province of B.C.

Everything that your government has done goes.... Lottery funds: where have they gone? General revenue. Where have all the special accounts gone? General revenue. We're looking at expanding in gaming. Where is that going to? General revenue -- into that black hole. I have my concerns. But I've given you suggestions where you might save some money, and I'm glad that you gave me the opportunity through your questions to expand on sources of this funding.

Closer to home, I have some questions with respect to specific matters that involve my constituents. One of

[ Page 1073 ]

them is a question with respect to the Coquihalla toll. Now it is the only highway in the province of British Columbia that has a toll on it. Could the minister tell me how many millions of dollars have been netted through toll collections since the inception of that toll?

[5:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: One of the longer questions on record, I might suggest.

Of course, the fundamental problem we find ourselves in has come about from the gross mismanagement over the past couple of years of non-government. It would be nice actually to be able to refer to it as the previous government, but for a couple of years there I think we had no government while the leader of the members opposite was running around trying to sell his funny farm.

In that period, we went from a fairly healthy budgetary condition to one of the worst. Yes, fiscally B.C. was doing not too badly, but the government of British Columbia, unfortunately, was doing terribly. We fell into recession a couple of years ago, when we still had a vibrant economy with lots of revenue coming in. But the previous administration managed to run up spending between 12 and 14 percent for about three or four years running in anticipation of a pending election all the time. They ran those expenditures right through the roof of the building. At the same time they were giving tax breaks to some of their friends, and now we've ended up with a severe deficit situation the previous fiscal year, and even worse in the fiscal year we've just completed. A deficit of about $2.3 billion was dumped on us, and furthermore the system was set up which was inevitably leading toward a deficit of about $2.8 billion. When the cupboard isn't just bare, but when the paint has been stripped off the cupboard, and you've even sold the cupboard doors, there's not an awful lot that we can do in the way of improving our highway infrastructure.

The member is right on. The only way in the long run is to encourage enough economic activity so that we get a larger pie and all of us derive more benefits from it. But we shouldn't -- I repeat, shouldn't -- try to do this on the backs of the poorest and the most unfortunate British Columbians, who have lost their jobs and have fallen off unemployment insurance partly because of failed federal fiscal policies. We shouldn't try to build that on their backs, and we shouldn't take $300 million from young mothers trying to raise a couple of kids on $1,400 or $1,500 a month. They are barely holding body and soul together now. We surely don't want to take more from them. We can't take more from the health sector -- that's obvious -- or from the education sector. The fair wage policy will not cost the money that you are pretending it will cost, because you know that the non-union bidders were usually coming in within a percent or two of the union bids. The difference was simply going into the contractors' pockets, that's all.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I wonder if you've all been smoking something funny; I'm not certain. You should stop and reflect a little.

The fair wage policy allows for a 15 percent discount from union rates. If there is a non-union company out there that can't start with a 15 percent saving and still win contracts, they must be a pretty incompetent bunch. I would submit that if they put the money into decent wages and decent benefits for their workforce, they would end up with a better workforce that will be more productive and more skilled. And in the end, we will save money through more substantial and better construction and through meeting time-lines and deadlines better.

There are no magic sources for the money -- none of them. We're faced with digging our way out from under the onerous burden dumped on us by those profligate spenders who preceded us. We will do our best to do that, and we will succeed. If I have my way on this side of the House, if we start using capitalization and judicious tolls, we can then proceed with the renewal of infrastructure. It's very important to do that, because you're correct: we can create a lot of jobs -- a lot of good-paying jobs at that -- and deliver safety and improved environment, and even solve some social problems out there.

I'm looking forward to the cooperation from that side of the House when we get to that stage where I will need -- or at least desire -- your cooperation. I'm sure you will stand up, to a person, and avidly support the new funding policies I am proposing. I know you'll get the letters out to your mayors and councils telling them to flood me with their support. Working together we're going to be able to deliver a better roadway system for the province of British Columbia.

C. Serwa: Obviously the minister is not listening. I think he was either after the Minister of Finance chair, or perhaps on a political campaign. In all seriousness, with respect to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates, I had asked him a very simple and straightforward question, and I got a very long non-answer. The simple question was: on the Coquihalla connector....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much. Now the minister comes up with that. Please, Mr. Minister, if you will do so.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total of the revenues collected on the Coquihalla up to '91-92 was about $120 million. Including estimates for '92-93, it would be about $150 million.

C. Serwa: I would like the minister to note that the toll was set up on the Coquihalla system to address only the accelerated costs of that highway-building project, which amounted to some $45 million. I and certainly the residents of the interior and, I'm certain, your constituents as well as mine look forward to your removal of that particular toll, because it is the only

[ Page 1074 ]

road in the province on which a toll is charged. May we look forward to the removal of that toll?

J. Beattie: I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Beattie: I'm very pleased today to introduce two constituents from my constituency, from the town of Naramata: Mr. Stu Berry, one of the directors of the Naramata Citizens' Association; and a regional district representative, Mr. Pat Field. They are accompanied by a representative of the ombudsman's office, Mr. David Greer. I am very pleased they are here today doing business on behalf of my constituents. I would like the House to make them welcome.

C. Serwa: I had asked a question of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but he's busy at the moment discussing an educational matter with the Minister of Education.

I was asking the minister if he would attend to his estimates in the Legislature rather than.... Perhaps they don't talk in cabinet.

In any event, seeing that the accelerated costs of the Coquihalla system have been more than amply returned, and the costs of the tollbooths and collection services have been looked after, may we look forward to the rapid removal of that toll?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member has indicated that the overrun costs have accelerated in the order of $45 million, and I would have to presume that $45 million was passed three or four years ago. So I'm wondering, while the member opposite was a cabinet minister in the previous government, did he each year, then, propose to take that toll off? Apparently the previous government didn't agree.

No, I cannot stand here and say that you will see the day that toll comes off. You'll have to, in part, address this question to the Minister of Finance -- Treasury Board, of course -- but there's no intention of removing that toll at this time.

C. Serwa: In fact, you would probably find letters on file or comments with respect to my questions in Hansard on that similar question, but seeing that you now form government and you're a member of the executive branch, I thought it would be only appropriate to share that question with you.

A couple of questions with respect to Highway 97 -- the improvements. I note in the estimates there has been a substantial downsizing of the Highway 97 widening and improvement project, from the border at Osoyoos right through to where it will connect with the Trans-Canada Highway. My question is: in that downsizing, is it the plan that the project still continue to unfold year by year?

The other part of the question is: in the north Okanagan, from approximately Enderby, or a little further north where the cutoff goes to Salmon Arm, there are two potential routes. One is the present route along Mara Lake, which is rocky and has very severe horizontal curves. The alternative route is to go on the west side of Mara Lake and the west side of a ridge and connect to the north side of Salmon Arm. Is that a proposal in the Highway 97 plan as well?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: With respect to most of 97, the project will be ongoing. Our expenditures in the coming fiscal year will be about $5.4 million, which is a substantial reduction from what we had anticipated we would be able to do. I was going to give you a total expenditure, but I don't have it offhand. There is much work yet to be done, and it will have to occur over quite a number of years.

There has been no route selection done at the northern end. The intention at the present time is to continue to improve up Salmon Arm and on up to Sicamous. A substantial portion of the design, running approximately halfway from Salmon Arm to Sicamous, has been done. We will again move into construction when the fiscal situation permits.

[5:45]

While I'm on my feet, and in view of the time, I'm wondering if the members opposite feel we will be able to conclude Transportation today, or do we wish to.... I see many heads shaking. On that basis I would ask that the committee rise and report.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

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

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

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, in deference to the minister's former employment -- he and I were colleagues of a sort, and this is a time when we would have done a considerable amount of grading -- I thought it might be appropriate in my response to provide the minister with a grade with respect to his estimates today. I'm very pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has a passing grade, and I think that....

An Hon. Member: And it's only his first year.

G. Wilson: Mind you, he only has a C+. Nevertheless, in looking at the summary of how we arrived at this grade, I'd like to say that he scored extremely high in some of the areas we looked at with respect to the general approach to this ministry. Clearly there are many areas in which the minister and the opposition agreed, and there is a good opportunity for us to work very closely together in the provision of services for aboriginal people.

We believe that the direction the government is taking with respect to the provision of programs relating to aboriginal affairs is something we can support. We even applaud some of the initiatives this minister has brought in. So he scored extremely high there.

[ Page 1075 ]

With respect to the direction on funding, however, especially in relation to off-reserve aboriginal people.... On the provision of core funding he unfortunately did not score highly, and it was our concern that there is a problem. I see that the hon. minister is saying it's the fault of the Minister of Finance. I don't care whose crib sheet he worked from; the problem is that he's going to have to wear the grade. But clearly we would like to see and would hope to see in subsequent budget years the commitment of the government to move toward the provision of core funding in order to be able to properly and adequately provide for off-reserve aboriginal people living in urban areas, to allow those people to develop ongoing programs and the kind of self-sufficient services that all of us would expect.

We also recognize that there is a real and very serious difficulty in trying to glean from this ministry all the costs associated with all the programs, because this ministry does not so much deliver programs as administer and generally act as coordinator for the provision of services for aboriginal people. So in wearing this C+, I guess part of the problem is that we have to pull from the Ministry of Social Services, the Ministry of Education and the Attorney General's office. When we have an opportunity to get into the estimates of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Women's Equality, we're going to be looking at specific program funding there, and exactly what provisions are being made in terms of the expenditures for aboriginal people.

The principal area where we have grave concerns, where there is a low grade recorded, is on the matter of the recognition of aboriginal title and rights and how we're going to resolve the very serious question of land claims, especially in relation to third-party interests and involvement.

Hon. Speaker, quite clearly this is only step one in this minister's career. We wish him well as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We believe that these were a sound set of estimates. We believe that the minister has his direction clearly established before him. We offer him our support in making sure that those programs that we do share with him are provided by the very best means to those we serve.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I've never been so pleased to get a C+ in my life, hon. Speaker. Considering what a tough marker the Leader of the Opposition is and the circumstances under which he is marking in this House, I take that as high praise, although I do note the areas in which he has concerns. I think we had an excellent chance to exchange views during the debate. We exchanged views on a philosophical plane as well as on a program and expenditure plane. It was for me a very satisfying interchange indeed with all of the members who participated. I would really like to thank the members of the opposition, both the official opposition and the third party, for making the debate as stimulating and as satisfying for me as I hope it was for them. Certainly I learned through the process, and I will work hard. If I come back next year and get another C+, I will take that as a sign of significant progress, because I know that the marking gets harder as the years go by.

I think we have, as a government, embarked on a new path. It's a path that we talked about before we became government. We talked about recognition of aboriginal rights to aboriginal title and self-government. We committed ourselves to participating in modern-day treaty negotiations to bring about a just resolution, to represent the interests of third parties in supporting sustainable economic initiatives that will benefit both aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, and to work toward the renewal of the constitutional process to ensure that within the constitution there is recognition of aboriginal people's rights and in particular their inherent right to self-government.

I think in our first six months we have shown some significant progress toward attaining those goals. It's a long path and the road is rocky and winding, but I do feel some sense of encouragement. Even with a C+ grade I feel some sense of encouragement that we are setting the right direction. This government responded quickly and positively to the B.C. claims task force, and as a result is now in the process, in cooperation with first nations and the federal government, of establishing a treaty commission that will oversee the negotiation throughout this province of treaties that can bring a measure of economic stability and certainty -- certainty for aboriginal peoples who are looking for a greater degree of self-determination and a new opportunity to participate in the benefits of Canada and of British Columbia, and certainty for non-aboriginal communities looking for a new relationship that can benefit them economically and also in terms of satisfying what I think most recognize has been an historic injustice.

Despite my low grade, I think we have taken some significant initiatives to involve third parties. Much of the budget is committed to expanding third-party consultation, ensuring that third parties are involved, not only provincially -- there is presently a third-party group provincially -- but also on a regional basis. As we start to get into the process of comprehensive negotiations, it's important that local communities, local people, be aware of what's going on and feel that they can participate in the process and be aware of it.

I will take my low grade not as a sign of ultimate failure but as a sign of support for those initiatives, and that we should be working even harder.

Interjections

Hon. A Petter: Despite the heckling I may receive from my own benches, I will take encouragement. We have begun negotiations with the federal government on cost-sharing. I think that's a significant step forward, showing that we are serious about getting on with the job and protecting the interests of British Columbians.

It's a new feeling to be heckled from one's own side, I must say -- refreshing.

We have also taken a number of other initiatives, one of which addresses the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition, in providing some core funding for one year to URBAN, an urban-based aboriginal organization. We do provide funding, and I hope to see an improvement of that funding for friendship centres. Again, we are making those moves. I know the Leader

[ Page 1076 ]

of the Opposition would always like us to spend a bit more. I certainly would like to be able to do so in this particular area. But we are taking some significant steps in the very directions that he seems most concerned about.

In some crucial areas we are trying to involve aboriginal peoples in government. Many of the boards and commissions that have been appointed in the last while have involved aboriginal peoples in a way they have never been involved before. Hopefully, they will give aboriginal peoples a voice in the formulation of programs. That, of course, is also a key responsibility of my ministry. Similarly, my ministry and I recognize that it is my responsibility and this government's responsibility to represent the interests of non-aboriginal peoples at the treaty negotiation table. That's a very important responsibility and why the third-party process and a general consultation process are important.

There is a host of other problems, many of which we explored. I look forward to working with the opposition, and with my colleagues even, over the next number of years. They're a very supportive group in resolving that myriad of concerns and problems. I do sense a very positive feeling in this House that I hope we can sustain over the next few years, in trying to build a positive future for aboriginal peoples. I know that the opposition views that as a non-partisan goal, and one that should not give rise to partisan commentary at this time.

With those comments, I'd like to say once again that I very much appreciate the debate, I appreciate the support, and I look forward to the challenges ahead.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, let me advise the House that we will sit tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Hon. A. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

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

Hon. A. Petter: I just want to take the opportunity to introduce Gillian Wallace, who is sitting to my left. She is acting assistant deputy minister of policy and operations and will be sitting in for my deputy while he is unavoidably detained at another meeting for part of this afternoon.

G. Wilson: If we could pick up where we left off, we were discussing in the final part of this morning's session questions relating to the negotiation process, how the minister was approaching matters on the resource side of that situation, and also the question of where on the list each of these particular comprehensive claims may be.

Could I finish that line of questioning with two short questions relating to the strategies currently in place to complete negotiations with off-reserve status aboriginal people? Firstly, in what sense are those aboriginal people going to be included in discussions and negotiation, as per the recommendations in the task force, and is there any financial assistance provided for them? And secondly, what kind of work is currently underway within the ministry to include matters relating to Metis people in the negotiations?

[3:00]

Hon. A. Petter: One of the recommendations of the task force report -- recommendation 7 -- is that "the organization of first nations for the negotiations is a decision to be made by each first nation." I suppose the question that arises is whether off-reserve status people wish to be associated with the territory from which they came or whether they wish not to be associated for the purpose of negotiations. The task force report advises that that question be resolved by the first nations themselves in consultation with their own people. I think that's very much the approach that will be taken.

There is, however, a question about self-government and negotiations towards self-government with off-reserve status and non-status. The UNN has made this point, and it's a matter of concern. We have had some preliminary discussions with some of the organizations representing, particularly, urban-based off-reserve status and off-reserve non-status aboriginal peoples to explore some ways in which there might be a negotiating process on self-government. I'm not sure if it's the treaty committee process: it may be, but it may not be. We talked, I think, last day about some of the peculiar difficulties and challenges that lie ahead in providing a measure of autonomy and self-government for those aboriginal peoples who exist off a land base. That is still in the exploratory stage, but it's a matter that I take seriously and that I think we have to proceed with.

With respect to Metis, I've had some discussions with the representatives of various Metis organizations in the province. Again, the situation with respect to Metis in the province is not fully defined for the purpose of this kind of negotiation process. Right now the Metis are trying to get themselves recognized as being under federal responsibility 91-24. But, certainly, there are Metis communities and Metis people who also have some claim to participate in self-government talks and, if there's a question of land base, may have some issues in respect to land as well. Again, we're just at the formative stages in terms of discussing with some of the

[ Page 1077 ]

Metis representatives whether and how those negotiations might unfold.

With respect to the off-reserve and the Metis, I think that process is likely to come out of the constitutional round we're now in. Those groups are fully engaged in the constitutional talks around inherent right to self-government. A lot of thought is being given, I think, at the constitutional table to how the inherent right might be made meaningful for those groups. I, in part, am looking to that process, and also listening to the advice I receive from the groups as to how we might proceed. I would welcome any suggestions that the Leader of the Opposition might have, as well.

G. Wilson: To what extent is the ministry and the minister involved in formulating the B.C. position within the constitutional round in relation to aboriginal inclusion, and inclusion of Metis people, in particular, in whatever final amendments may be coming down in the Canada Act.

Hon. A. Petter: I am involved, but the lead minister is obviously the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. I do sit on the constitutional committee, and I have been called upon to participate, and I am participating, in discussions regarding constitutional issues. There's so much overlap here. I also attended a meeting of Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs from across the country -- some did have constitutional responsibility and some did not; I guess I fall into some kind of hybrid capacity in between the two -- at which we engaged in discussion with Metis, national groups and others about these issues. I am involved in assisting the government to formulate policy but in an assisting capacity to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.

To the extent that it bears on this issue, the position that we have taken is that the inherit right of self-government that applies to aboriginal peoples generally, and that would include -- at least in my assumption -- aboriginal peoples who are Metis or non-status.

G. Wilson: Given that there is some involvement and some inclusion.... I think the news that we are developing a B.C. position that has constituent members from all groups of British Columbia society, including the aboriginal group in particular, will be welcomed by everybody. We would welcome that. Is there money available then to assist members with off-reserve status -- and, in fact, some may argue, non-status peoples -- with respect to the proposition that they may desire to have put forward to have themselves included?

While I recognize that off-reserve status members may be essentially mandated to be included in the agreement of each individual first nation, I wonder what kind of assistance can be provided for off-reserve status and non-status aboriginal people to assist them in putting together their position, their point of view, so that their voice is included. By virtue of whatever power relationships may exist, we should not allow certain groups to fall through the cracks but should be inclusive of all people being able to get this proposition put forward to a resolution, where fairness is accorded to all aboriginal people.

Hon. A. Petter: I can speak to that, although it doesn't appear in my estimates -- at least the one point that I want to make. The government did provide funding to a number of aboriginal organizations to engage in their own consultations and formulate their own position on the constitution. You may recall that that sum was included under one of the special warrants passed in the previous fiscal year that was attached to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. I attended the UNN conference -- I think it was in February in Vancouver. We looked at constitutional issues, and we also assisted with some funding for that conference. Similarly, some funding was provided by the provincial government out of that allocation for a number of smaller consultative meetings and conferences by the Pacific Metis Federation. There was also funding provided to some of the status groups.

In addition, we are working with representatives of the United Native Nations and the school of public administration at the University of Victoria to plan a conference on self-government among off-reserve aboriginal peoples. That is just in the formative stages, but I think that conference may assist us within British Columbia in coming to a better understanding of how we might proceed, either subsequent to or independent of the constitutional round now taking place.

G. Wilson: With relation to that funding, I do recall the special warrant expenditure and appreciate the minister reminding me of it. The proposition for the development of a question on a subsequent referendum, which we are obliged by the Referendum Act to do, unless that act is amended or repealed.... I guess those are the only two options aren't they? So we're going to have to do that. To what extent will there be inclusion of aboriginal members from the B.C. society in the formulation of that question? I ask this not because I don't believe that the national organizations have the ear and the broader concerns of aboriginal people but because I think that in British Columbia we have some specific and special cases that need to be addressed. And if there is not satisfaction at the federal round, it may be an interesting and useful exercise to have a secondary round in the formulation of a B.C. question. I wonder if there is consideration given and money available for that inclusion in the formulation of the B.C. question.

Hon. A. Petter: I have not been involved in any discussions concerning that particular question. I can't assure the member of any particular decision that's been taken by the government, because I'm not aware of one in respect of that.

What I would say generally is this: we have been very conscious of the need both to consult and to involve our provincial organizations in all aspects of policy formulation, constitutional and otherwise. The evidence is in the funding that I spoke about, up to this point. I would imagine that there will be opportunities for further consultation around any issue, including the

[ Page 1078 ]

formulation of a question of the kind you've asked. There certainly is funding within my budget, under self-government negotiations, to allow that kind of consultation to take place. But I'm not aware of any specific policy or discussions that have taken place to this point on that issue.

G. Wilson: Of the $965,000 that is identified in STOB 40 for advertising and publications, is any of that money dedicated, or will it be earmarked, for advertisement, explanation or educational programs with respect to the constitutional question, so aboriginal people living in the interior, the north, etc., are going to be properly informed on what the final question is and what the resolution of the question may be with respect to their welfare and their ongoing inclusion in Canada?

Hon. A. Petter: We haven't specifically earmarked any of that money for that purpose. I guess it will be a question, when we get to that stage of the referendum -- as to whether the money would come out of this budget or out of some other budget relating to the overall referendum funding. Certainly we will, judging by our track record, be very conscious of the need to engage in consultation. There is enough flexibility in the budget that this form of consultation could be allocated out of this budget. I can't give you a definitive answer, because I don't know the answer exactly.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister could tell me roughly what that $965,000 for advertising and publications is going for. I caution the minister that the reason I'm asking this is because I'm wondering why there isn't core funding for outfits like the UNN. I warn you in advance that I'm going to be looking for money for that.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. That funding is involved for a number of important purposes, not the least of which is our process to ensure there is public consultation with third-party interests to participate in treaty negotiations. Also.... Excuse me one second.

I'm sorry. Let me correct myself. I was reaching into the overall budget for the communications and public consultation branch within the ministry. It strikes me that you're probably looking for a narrower category, and that is the publication or advertising component of that budget. That is, for a number of purposes, related to better dispensing of information to the public about the process of treaty negotiations, eliciting response and participation in public consultation -- although the consultation itself will presumably come out of another STOB item.

[3:15]

That funding has to do with the obligations we have taken on, in response to the task force report, to ensure adequate public consultation and involvement. We have to engage in advertising and other forms of public education to ensure full participation in that process.

G. Wilson: True to my warning, let me come directly to the point. URBAN, I think, was short some $65,000 in their budget to put in place the individual they needed. The UNN is looking for core funding to allow them to hire people and have an ongoing budgeting process. Their overall budget -- I would guess what they would require in that core funding -- would be under $100,000. If you're going to put $1 million into advertising and publications, why wouldn't you take a portion of that money and make that directly available to aboriginal people for the application of programs and allow, as a part of that core funding to those programs, those organizations to put together the advertising and publication package themselves? They can then direct the advertising as opposed to having the government direct it.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very sympathetic to the notion of using some of the funds of my ministry to do exactly that. Under "contributions" there is a $200,000 allocation to enable aboriginal groups to engage in their own forms of education and interaction with non-aboriginal communities. However, the government also has a responsibility, as a part of this tripartite process, to ensure that the information is provided to the people of the province and that they are fully apprised of and have opportunities to become involved in the overall process. I don't think one precludes the other.

In addition -- I think I mentioned this last time -- we have made available to URBAN, which is the sort of umbrella organization that the UNN is also involved in in Vancouver, funding in the nature of $80,000 to assist them with their operations for the coming year.

G. Wilson: The minister is quite correct, and I don't take issue with the $80,000. I don't think URBAN does; they're grateful to have the $80,000. What was required -- and I think what they'd asked for -- was $65,000 more in order to complete the programs that they had budgeted and outlined for this year.

Notwithstanding the $200,000, if the general approach is to get away from this colonial mentality that the federal and provincial governments have had toward aboriginal people, and if we're saying that we want to move to a greater degree of autonomy in matters of self-government so there can be a proposition for self-determination, which the minister so eloquently articulated earlier on, I wonder why of all of the expenditures, roughly $1 million that seems to be earmarked for government public relations that could be given directly for the provision of services. In particular, it could be used to hire members from various organizations to start to provide for the people that are most affected by either social issues beyond their control or economic issues that force them to become dependent.

Hon. A. Petter: I would make two points in response to that. The first is that I would draw the opposition leader's attention to the importance that was placed by the task force upon the obligation of government to engage in public education and information. For example, recommendation 17 of the task force report says: "...Canada, British Columbia and the first nations jointly undertake public education and infor-

[ Page 1079 ]

mation programs." Recommendation 18: "...the parties in each negotiation jointly undertake a public information program." Recommendation 19: "...British Columbia, Canada and the first nations request the first nations education secretariat, and various educational organizations in British Columbia, to prepare resource materials for use in the schools and by the public."

There has been tremendous importance attached -- I think correctly -- by the task force to British Columbia participating in a program of education and information-sharing with the public to pave the way for treaty negotiations and to make them aware of what is going on and how they can get further information and participate.

Much of this funding will be dispensed in tripartite initiatives -- that is, through the treaty commission or in local negotiations. The three parties together -- federal, provincial and first nations or first nation, if it is a particular negotiation -- get together and work on publications that will apprise people in those communities of what is going on, what to expect and how they can become involved in and informed of the issues. The Nisga'a pamphlet that I referred to last day is an example of that kind of tripartite approach.

Much of these funds will be directed toward publications and information that will be allocated through this tripartite procedure -- either the treaty commission or the negotiations themselves -- in order to more fully apprise the public of what is going on and of the province's role in representing third-party interests at the table. That's a role that the province takes on in this process, and I again direct the members' attention to the importance attached to this by the task force report.

G. Wilson: I'd like to come back to this business of core funding, and I confess that it is something that I have a particular bias for. I think that the sooner we stop providing glossy brochures and a lot of public relations and the sooner we start to concentrate on putting some dollars into long-term propositions for self-sufficiency, the better off we're going to be.

Having said that, let me just ask if the minister could outline how much of this $965,000 for this publication is actually going to be run through the government agencies they have here with respect to the publishing of that material. How much of it will be generated from aboriginal people themselves?

Hon. A. Petter: The best I can do is to give you an estimate. Roughly one-third to one-half of the money will likely be dedicated toward joint and tripartite initiatives in terms of public education. I have an equally strong skepticism about the benefit of glossy brochures, and I will assure the Leader of the Opposition that anything that looks glossy and slick will immediately have one strike against it in my eyes.

I see these funds as being very much directed toward the fulfilment of the obligations we have taken upon ourselves by endorsing the task force report. My best guesstimate is one-third to one-half.

G. Wilson: The other half or two-thirds, depending on which they are, is going to be largely generated by government publication. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: You're correct that the remainder is to be dedicated to provincially generated publication and advertising -- much of which will likely be of an informational nature to get people to participate in things such as tripartite negotiations. But the remainder will be provincially generated, yes.

G. Wilson: I'm sure the minister is aware of -- and I wonder if he might want to comment on -- the frustration that has been expressed to me in my critic role, and even previous to that as leader of the Liberal Party travelling the province and meeting with aboriginal peoples, that there doesn't seem to be a proposition. Let me come specifically now to matters of group organizations such as URBAN or UNN in the Vancouver area. There doesn't seem to be a proposition that allows these organizations some stable ongoing core funding in order to hire staff to put into place programs that can be administered through those organizations on an ongoing basis, or that allows them the opportunity to develop a high level of self-sufficiency and to become much greater advocates for themselves as opposed to having to rely on the government advocacy position.

I recognize that in the reserve situation it largely becomes a federal matter out of the Department of Indian Affairs. But with respect to the off-reserve URBAN group, that group is very dependent on provincial sources of funding. I just wonder why, notwithstanding the task force report and given that there is such a high amount of dollars.... I mean, $1 million dollars is reasonably substantial if one looks at the amount of committed dollars being put into the proposition of advertising Aboriginal Affairs and programs. Why doesn't the minister choose to take a portion of that money and put it into core funding so that the groups can start to hire and start the long-term planning that they need to do?

Hon. A. Petter: I would make two points. First of all, when we're talking about a whole province and the potential of some very important negotiations coming on stream, for which I think there is concern and a desire on the part of the public to gain better information, a million dollars is really not an incredible amount of money. I don't want to be accused of being a C.D. Howe; I appreciate that it is an important amount of money. But if you think of the province as a whole, and the fact that we could be well into dealing with a number of negotiations within the next six months or so, which will involve a tremendous need to reach out and communicate with communities, I don't think this amount is really excessive.

It may look large in respect of my ministry's total budget, but that's only because the ministry budget is relatively small since its role is not, for the most part, to provide programs. It's there to engage in functions of advocacy within government and to be engaged in treaty negotiation outside of government. Therefore

[ Page 1080 ]

advertising, communication and publication become part of the glue that allows all that to happen. If you think of the province as a whole, I don't think it is an inordinate amount of money for that task.

On the question of core funding, I agree with the member that this is a serious concern. That is why we approved the $80,000 grant to URBAN -- to at least give them funding for this year. We are reviewing that situation, and I think that review will also become part of our examination of self-government in the URBAN context -- what is required to make that happen.

I would also point out that one of the few programs that my ministry actually delivers, the First Citizens' Fund, does have within it an element of core funding for native friendship centres and for the directors of those centres. There will be some expansion of that funding this year, which will provide greater support to those native friendship centres to provide services. That core funding is an important component as well. But I don't disagree that there is a need to review this, and I'm committed to doing so.

I would just make one point. One is always caught here between a conflicting desire on the one hand to not use jurisdictional concerns as an excuse, which I'm not trying to do, but to nevertheless attend to them. That is, the division between on and off reserve that the federal government seems to adhere to is a very arbitrary one, and one that in the provincial government's view does not find support in the constitutional arrangements as we understand them. While I don't want to use this as an excuse for moving forward -- and we haven't in the case of friendship centres, URBAN and in future initiatives -- I do want to bear in mind, and have the leader bear in mind, that the federal responsibility as articulated in 91.24 is not divided based on on reserve or off reserve. I'm very keen that dollars we do put in are ones which leave our federal dollars in, not ones that allow further federal dollars to come out.

[3:30]

G. Wilson: I think that was skillfully done, because how can one argue against that? But nevertheless core funding is needed. That was the heart of the question. I wonder if we could just elaborate a little bit on the First Citizens' Fund with respect to that core funding. In the commentary that we've had coming in, particularly from Kelowna, Kamloops and a couple of the other Cariboo towns -- and I don't want to necessarily name them, because I want to be sure that I get them correct -- there is some concern with respect to the proposition of core funding for native friendship centres that there is a need to decentralize the friendship centres much more. I wonder what the minister might tell us about any plans that he or his ministry has to assist in the decentralization of native friendship centres outside of simply the larger urban centres.

Hon. A. Petter: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition could give me some clarification. Let me correct something. I think I said we funded directors; I meant to say program directors of those centres. To my understanding, the centres are dispersed throughout the province. They are organized in the way that they're organized, and we fund the centres that exist. I'm not quite sure how you would envisage us decentralizing them further, or what your particular concern is. Perhaps you'd explain it to me.

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to describe in a little more detail the concerns that we're having. The concerns that have come to our attention stem largely from rural populations which feel that if there were additional dollars directly targeted for services currently provided through friendship centres, those services in fact could be decentralized outside of the centre itself. It is difficult to bring groups into the facility without having the proposition of some core funding that would allow for the services to be provided outside of the centre. That's what I'm talking about.

Hon. A. Petter: I haven't heard that concern from the friendship centre representatives themselves, but I appreciate hearing it now. I would say that we are committed to continuing the funding for the program directors of the friendship centers. I would personally like to see some of that funding expanded, and I hope we can expand it somewhat, in consultation with the centers on the needs that they articulate. That may be one of the needs. But at the end of the day, the government won't be setting the program requirements or the ways in which the friendship centers deliver their programs. That will be a decision they will have to make in consultation with the constituent groups and individuals that they service.

G. Wilson: I would be happy to arrange for the member for Okanagan East to expand a little bit more on this. I think she has some written documentation that might be useful to the minister.

I don't want to touch on what we did last day, but there were a couple of questions that came out of the proposition of Social Service funding and its estimates that I tried to get information on. I wonder if the minister might briefly outline, within the provision of the contribution sector under STOB 82, which is the $2.8 million, what specific programs are likely for matters concerning aboriginal women. I asked this question in a general context last time, and I wonder if we could have a specific response.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, as I've explained before, and I know the leader appreciates this. The actual delivery of programs is, by and large -- with a few noted exceptions we've talked about -- the responsibility of the line ministry. For example, in the family violence area, we have been working with the Ministry of Women's Equality to ensure that aboriginal concerns are addressed through that initiative.

On the contribution side, the funds in STOB 82 in particular -- I'll get further clarification -- are principally dedicated to the first peoples' heritage, language and culture program, both the operating and capital side; contributions to first nations for public consultation initiatives -- the $200,000 I spoke about previously; and some contributions to first nations for natural resource co-management and joint stewardship ar-

[ Page 1081 ]

rangements. There is no funding within that contribution that specifically addresses social programs related to women. Those would come out of either the Ministry of Women's Equality or the Ministry of Social Services or Health, with, perhaps, the support of my ministry as to how to best direct those moneys to aboriginal communities in a way that is most sensitive and helpful in assisting women within those communities or in an urban setting, if that's the case.

G. Wilson: Thank you for that clarification. My notes were not specific on that, and I just wanted to make sure that that was the case.

The difficulty that arises -- and I'm sure the minister is aware, and I don't want to elaborate on it too much -- is having to try and pick the small amounts, or even large amounts, from each of the line ministries dedicated specifically to aboriginal programs. It becomes very difficult.

The particular problem we need to look at in this respect is to what extent, in the final resolution of negotiation, matters of the question of Charter provisions -- and we talked about this last time -- are going to apply, and to what extent individual equality, as opposed to the right of a collective to define what the provisions may be in their case-specific instances, becomes problematic, especially if there is going to be a responsibility of government to pick up the social costs of dealing with the fallout of some of these very serious inequalities that exist, based on the kind of cultural biases that some non-aboriginals in this community may have. I recognize the sensitivity of it, and I think it touched a nerve when I talked about it in the estimates on Social Services. It was explained that there is no distinction made on the provision of service for women, with the exception of one or two very specified programs, as to whether or not those women are aboriginal people or not. I think the minister will agree that in the final analysis there are some very real problems with respect to status that impact on aboriginal women and simply don't apply to non-aboriginal people.

It seems to me that in all of the estimates I've looked at to date -- I grant you we haven't done Health, and it will be a first-time experience doing Women's Equality -- that there is a large segment of the population who are falling through a pretty significant crack in the works. There are some legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. I wonder what the minister's thinking is on that, and whether or not this should be something that should be in his budget. I recognize most ministers would like to expand their budgets, but notwithstanding that, where should that properly fall? If it doesn't fall clearly in Social Services, because there is no means of delineation, and given that it is not a major part of Women's Equality.... I don't know, maybe you can comment on that.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to comment on it. I tend to see things breaking out into different components. Remember, first of all, that we have a situation where the federal government, with respect to a large number of aboriginal peoples, exercises primary jurisdiction. So it's there with its own programs very often, or sometimes contracting, with the province doing its own thing.

From the provincial point of view, one thing I believe the province should resist is the temptation for this ministry to become another mini-ministry akin to the Department of Indian Affairs. I don't think that's in anyone's interest -- aboriginal peoples or non-aboriginal peoples. We don't want to see that. Therefore I'm not particularly keen to take on a whole bunch of programs.

It seems to me that we're trying to do two things at the same time -- recognizing the federal jurisdiction that's already over there. One is to make the general provincial programs more sensitive to the needs of aboriginal communities and, within those communities, aboriginal women, children, etc. This government has taken some significant steps. I can't recount them all to you -- you'd have to talk to the individual ministers -- but I'll give you some examples. In respect of the Task Force on Family Violence, there was aboriginal representation on that task force, and a separate report was issued by the aboriginal representative. The government published that report along with the rest of the report, is responding to it and will take the recommendations in that report very seriously.

There is a review of child protection, which has been initiated by the Ministry of Social Services. It was announced in November, 1991, that a community panel would hold public and private meetings in communities throughout the province. Aboriginal panel members and the Ministry of Social Services staff have arranged several meetings specifically for aboriginal communities to participate in that initiative.

Aboriginal representation has been provided on other bodies. There is a committee, for example, advising the Minister of Health on health initiatives, the royal commission report, etc., which includes aboriginal representation. In respect of child care initiatives just announced last week, there will be a component for aboriginal consultation and involvement, with my ministry assisting.

So on the one side, there are the generalized programs in which we have an obligation to work, with the assistance of my ministry and the line ministries, to make those programs more sensitive to and more useful for aboriginal peoples generally and the particular constituent groups within the aboriginal community. At the same time, the other initiatives that we are just starting to embark upon, it seems to me, fall within the general ambit of self-government -- that is, giving greater control over their own destinies and their own abilities to aboriginal communities.

Core funding is something you've mentioned. Clearly that's something we have to look at, and we will be looking at it; and in addition, turning over funding for certain programs. We have to proceed towards that in a fairly careful way, in consultation with aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, through a negotiated process, to make sure that we get it right -- that it isn't a mammoth failure for us or for aboriginal communities -- to ensure that the federal government doesn't use it

[ Page 1082 ]

as an opportunity to walk away, and to ensure that the transition that takes place is an orderly one.

There may well be some costs involved, in the sense that there may be economies of scale in current programs delivered by the province. Those economies of scale may be lost because we have turned over some funds to aboriginal communities. That's not a reason not to go ahead, but it's a reason to calculate the costs and be very deliberate and careful before going ahead. That's what we intend to do.

That's the process of self-government negotiation and giving greater degrees of autonomy to aboriginal communities that we're just starting to embark upon and I hope will show some progress in the next year. Perhaps next year, at this time, I'll be able to give more satisfactory answers. I'm not promising, but I hope to.

G. Wilson: I have really only one remaining question. I know that the member for Chilliwack has some questions that he would like to ask of the minister. My final question has to do primarily with the proposition of the final analysis of negotiation. We talked a little about this earlier on, before we broke, in terms of the proposition that is available in terms of funding. I wonder what the thinking of the minister is with respect to a proposition that was advocated both by the federal government and, strangely enough, by a previous government three governments ago; that is, essentially, that some funds need to be established now as an ongoing reserve toward a resolution of these questions. In fact, if there had been an investment pool that could be directed specifically to the settlement of these issues, that might be something that could be channelled into resolution. What is the minister's thinking on that?

[3:45]

The reason I'm interested to hear is that the questions I get from the public consistently -- even though a lot of this interests me and I need to know about it as critic -- are: who's going to pay, how much is it going to be and how are we going to afford it? That is the bottom line for most members of the public. They want answers to those three questions. Clearly I don't think you can answer the second one -- how much will it be? -- because I don't think any of us know what that will be with any degree of accuracy. Who's going to pay is pretty obvious: citizens of the province. Ultimately the citizens of the province are the same taxpayers, albeit one-tenth of the group -- or one-twelfth, I guess, if you include the territories -- that fund the federal government. The citizens are going to pay, but how are we going to do it? That is the question that I think people do want an answer to, and notwithstanding the comments you made earlier with respect to the certain status and the various approaches to amortization of costs, to jointly shared resources and all of those kinds of things -- which you and I can debate and discuss the merits of at some other time when we have a less formal atmosphere -- I wonder what your thinking is with respect to establishing now a long-term financing plan. Given that this proposition has been going on for a long time, it strikes me that we are not likely to come to a definitive resolution on this question in the next year or two. Maybe it is a good time now for us to start to build essentially a land investment bank that would allow us -- both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people -- to start to work toward the proposition of ongoing land management strategies.

The Chair: Just before I recognize the hon. minister, I would caution all hon. members that we're getting very close to the line on perhaps future legislation and legislative proceedings on this. So if we could just all be a little aware of that, it would help the Chair in determining the situation of order in the proceedings to follow.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll answer briefly. The idea of a land investment bank, or some kind of bank, for treaty negotiations is an intriguing one; I'd be very interested to see the proposals of the federal government and of the government three governments ago. I certainly think we have to start addressing our mind to the question of strategies for how we make what I would prefer to categorize as an investment rather than a cost, and see that investment through so we start to reap the rewards of it. This is one strategy which certainly deserves to be looked at.

I haven't given it the thought that would enable me to give you a firm answer, but I'd be very happy to look at whatever proposals have been made in the past and to work them into the overall process. I may say that part of the process of engaging in cost negotiations is not simply negotiating with the federal government, but coming to an understanding of what the province's capacity to participate is and how we can participate; and this strategy may well be one that deserves some consideration as part of that process.

R. Chisholm: I'll give you a little bit of background, because it's somewhat different from the line of questioning you've been used to for the last couple of hours.

I received a brief from the Western Indian Agricultural Corp. Ltd., and I quote:

"The Western Indian Agricultural Corp. Ltd. works to support native agricultural initiatives in British Columbia through education and financial assistance. Information provided by WIAC indicates that there are approximately 1,000 native farmers in British Columbia, most of whom range in the age from 35 to 45, and have between grade 6 and grade 9 education. Some have informal agricultural training, and training in related activities. Native farmers engage primarily in beef cattle production, and have, on average, five to ten years' experience. Other agricultural activities, such as sheep, poultry, vegetable and fruit-tree farming, are generally undertaken by less experienced farmers.

"According to WIAC, there are 4,000 to 5,000 native people on reserves and off reserves who have expressed an interest in agricultural activities, but who have neither the financial resources nor the skills to begin. Agricultural activities provide a unique opportunity for economic development and the utilization of Indian bands' natural and human resources.

"The province provides for income assistance, insurance and other financial assistance to farmers in British Columbia. For instance, in August 1990, the provincial government announced the formation of the Okanagan

[ Page 1083 ]

Tree Fruit Authority" -- and then gave them $30 million.

"Agriculture is an important industry for British Columbians. Native involvement in agriculture activity is increasing, as farming and ranching are a good method of increasing native self-sufficiency and utilizing of native skills."

What is your ministry doing, or has your ministry done anything, in providing financial or educational assistance to aboriginals to allow them to develop jobs and participate in the agricultural community of this province? Or does that come under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, let me answer in two parts. The first part is to say that in this area, as in others, my ministry itself for the most part does not offer programs. It would provide support to the Ministry of Agriculture -- in this case, to provide support to first nations agricultural groups. We would assist as best we could to ensure that the Agriculture ministry performs that role in a way that meets the needs of aboriginal citizens, and in this case, farmers and others engaged in agriculture.

However, it is the case that under the First Citizens' Fund, the loan guarantee component of that program, one of the sublenders under All Nations Trust Co. is Western Indian Lending Association, which I understand is associated with the group that you've referred to. It does dispense funds made available through the First Citizens' Fund. So the answer in terms of my ministry, in this case and usually, is that there is a component of a program directed towards providing assistance to aboriginal peoples who are engaged in agriculture. It's done through the First Citizens' Fund, and in particular through this sublender, who takes a portion of the First Citizens' Fund moneys allocated for loan guarantees and directs it towards native agricultural initiatives.

R. Chisholm: The second part of that question was on the educational portion. Do you instruct the Ministry of Agriculture to educate the aboriginals in areas of agriculture? Or is that completely under their domain, with some guidance from your department?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is yes. My ministry does provide support to other ministries of government -- in this case Agriculture and Advanced Education. In terms of providing assistance to various aboriginal organizations -- in this case the one that you mentioned -- I understand that an official in my ministry has been working with that organization, in particular to try to develop a strategy that will involve those other ministries in providing a better service and better delivery of their programs to that organization and to the aboriginal groups and individuals it represents.

D. Jarvis: Minister, I just wanted to ask an unusual question. Perhaps it's a question of jurisdiction; I don't know. It pertains to a disturbance of quiet enjoyment, with regard to mining. It pertains to the gravel pit in the Sechelt area, which, as you know, is situated on Crown and Indian reserve land. I've been contacted by several people and by the Sechelt council, stating that the area that surrounds the gravel pit is a retirement area -- you know, it's a very seasonal tourist area. There is a terrific amount of noise, as this gravel pit is running seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and is slated to go for at least the next 20 years, plus or minus. Its jurisdiction doesn't follow.... There's nothing under the Mines ministry that would restrict usage -- that I can find, anyway. I just wonder if there's anything in your department, because the people there want to come to some kind of compromise, where at least it'll be closed, say, from midnight to 6 a.m. The noise is continuous and rather disturbing.

Hon. A. Petter: I don't know the specifics of this situation. I must confess that I've tried to grasp the detail of my ministry, but it hasn't gotten to that point. I understand that there have been some inquiries made by my ministry and some monitoring of this situation. I'd be happy to follow up on that and get back to the member. Obviously, as you suggest, there are jurisdictional concerns when one's talking about reserve land in particular. I'd be happy to follow up and see what the situation is in this case, and whether either the federal government or my ministry could provide any assistance in trying to resolve the difficulty.

I guess -- just a matter of gratuitous advice, not as a minister but as a citizen and a former law professor -- that if one can resolve these disputes by not resorting to formal legal means, then that's usually the best way to do it. I would hope that there might be the opportunity to do that. If my ministry could assist, or if we could get the federal department to work in some way to get some cooperation, I'd be happy to lend a hand.

A. Cowie: I have a general question, but maybe I'll make it more specific, so that it applies to other areas. Let's take the Musqueam band. In that particular case, which is in my riding, approximately one-third of the people are of aboriginal ancestry and approximately two-thirds are other people who lease land. Has the ministry any guidelines for how the normal, democratic process is going to work? The taxes are paid now to the Indian band, and they have really no control over it; there's no representation.

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding of the history of this -- we could call in aid the excellent memory of the leader of the third party -- is that the initiative in this regard is one of the federal government, the land being reserve land or surrendered for the purpose of various forms of development. The province's role was simply to facilitate the taxation agreement by allowing a withdrawal of taxation authority by municipalities so there would not be double taxation. But the concern you have expressed is more properly directed to the federal government and to the federal minister. Certainly my ministry has no role in stipulating those kinds of conditions, and I'm not sure what the federal government has by way of guidelines.

[4:00]

[ Page 1084 ]

[D. Schreck in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to start by picking up on a question by the opposition leader a little while ago with regard to the advertising budget of the ministry. Can the minister give me any indication of how much of that budget is now being focused on native-owned broadcast organizations? For example, NNB in Terrace do a radio broadcast through most of northern British Columbia; Kahtou is a magazine that is read by most Indian people in British Columbia; and there are a number of other publications. I am interested because I made a personal undertaking when I was the minister to try to ensure that more of the ministry's advertising budget was directed toward those two particular broadcast or media facilities. It was an undertaking, in a broader sense, to make sure that we did advertising in and through media that were owned by and read by native people particularly.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that the amount expended last year with respect to Northern Native Broadcasting was $35,000, and we anticipate an expenditure of around $55,000 this year. I don't have the specifics on Kahtou, but advertising is certainly directed there as well.

I may also say that it's my view that we should, to the greatest extent possible, utilize aboriginal peoples and consulting firms -- whatever -- in the production of advertising and information material, so that we get the double benefit of this not only being information with intrinsic value, but also providing a spur for aboriginal business initiatives and forming part of an economic strategy as well. I hope other ministries of government don't feel disinclined to direct their budgets to aboriginal organizations. But I must say that I feel particular obligation to do so in this ministry.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

J. Weisgerber: Those thoughts were precisely ours -- or mine -- when we gave that undertaking. It was to make sure that the information was disseminated and to encourage the use of commercial types of advertising through aboriginal-owned media groups, because, as the minister is probably aware, the federal government appears to be pulling back on those things. And there was a request -- as there often is -- to the province to step in and supplant the lost revenue by way of grants. It was my feeling that rather than simply step into the position taken by the federal government, we should encourage a more commercial kind of undertaking between ourselves and those privately-owned groups. I would be happy with that, and would encourage the minister to push not only his own ministry -- because I don't think they need a lot of pushing -- but the public affairs bureau particularly. The bureaucracy there seems very slow to move on those things. I can appreciate the problem because I lived with it for a while myself.

I'd like to move onto the recommendations of the task force, and the recommendation that deals with the establishment of a treaty commission to start to deal with the resolution of land claims by way of treaty. One of the specific recommendations -- and we approved them in principle, as the minister has noted -- that gave me difficulty was the one that dealt with the makeup of a treaty commission. It seemed to me that if we were going to enter into tripartite negotiations, it would be appropriate for the province to stake out the position that membership on the board should be equal among the three parties, but with a chairperson perhaps agreed to outside of the membership. As my memory serves me, the recommendation from the task force was that there be one from the province, one from the federal government and two from the aboriginal community. The minister has accepted that recommendation, as I understand. I wonder if he could give me a bit of his thoughts there.

Hon. A. Petter: The leader of the third party is correct that the composition is one federal representative, one provincial, two aboriginal and then one chair to be agreed upon by the three participants -- the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada and the first nations. Yes, that gave me some pause too, because the task force was based on a tripartite system in which there was equal representation. I guess, from the first nations point of view, this is a relationship to normalize relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. From our point of view, the provincial and federal government are quite distinct entities. I guess the compromise the task force came to was to say: "We will provide for equal representation, but then provide for this chair." Since the federal and provincial governments participate in the choice of the chair, that can perhaps soften it a bit.

The way we addressed this was to address the underlying concern that no one wants to be in a situation where any one group can outvote the other. What we have asked for in the negotiations -- and this has been agreed to in the negotiations that we've been conducting to create the commission -- is that decision-making on the commission be by consensus. If decision-making is by consensus, that means the provincial representative will have the same opportunity as the federal or aboriginal representatives to voice concerns and insist that changes be made to accommodate the province's point of view. That seemed to us to be a reasonable compromise. Even though the province has only one representative, that representative, along with the others, would have the opportunity to voice the provincial concern and ensure that it was taken into account, because the decision-making is to be by consensus.

J. Weisgerber: I suppose that cuts both ways. If it's going to be by consensus, then perhaps the argument is as strong for one, one and one, as it is for one, two and two. I'm not certain that that could be the only rationale for it. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on how the two aboriginal members would be selected. Does he have organizations in mind? Does he understand that they would be allocated? Does he or the province have any position on how those two seats might be filled?

[ Page 1085 ]

Hon. A. Petter: I don't have a position, but I can tell you my understanding of how they are to be filled. First of all, they are to be filled by the aboriginal organizations that support the commission process and want to become involved in it. It will be up to those organizations and their representatives to decide how to go about making those selections. It is not for the province or the federal government to tell them how to do that. That's how I envisage it taking place.

J. Weisgerber: It would seem to me that there's an opportunity through those seats to try and broaden the number of people who are interested in supporting the treaty-making process, which, as the minister knows, I happen to support as an appropriate way for us to go. I would suggest that it's not the province's position to decide who goes on there. On the other hand, with the influence that the minister might have in the process, it would be nice to make sure that we try to bring as many aboriginal British Columbians as possible into this treaty-making process -- and that the two seats might then be used to attract varying political organizations to the process.

Given that we both appear to support treaty-making as the way of resolving outstanding land claims in British Columbia, there are some problems that seem to present themselves. The first is the Douglas treaties. I'm curious to know how the province looks at the Douglas treaties in relation to this treaty-making process. Would the minister envision a renegotiation of the treaties -- if he considers them to be treaties at all?

Hon. A. Petter: As the leader of the third party can appreciate, the general orientation of the task force report is to be fairly open on these kinds of questions. It's for first nations to come forward with issues that they believe merit treatment through a treaty process. It's possible -- indeed, likely at some point -- that first nations within the Douglas treaty area may choose to avail themselves of this process and come forward, at which time the provincial and federal governments will have to deal with those issues. I don't have a categorical answer for you on that, other than to say that my understanding of the process and of the Treaty Commission is that it allows first nations in the Douglas treaty area to bring their claims forward through the Treaty Commission -- as it does those who are in other parts of the province.

J. Weisgerber: The province established a land claims registry office some time ago. I'm curious to know whether or not the minister still supports that activity, whether it's still active and whether or not any of the Douglas treaty bands have filed with the land claims registry.

Hon. A. Petter: To my understanding, the registry is maintained. Ten claims have been filed, but none of them fall within the Douglas treaty areas.

J. Weisgerber: I'm looking for some sense of the direction that the province will take in approaching land claims negotiations. I know they're difficult questions, because I've had the opportunity to rassle with them. If a claimant was already a beneficiary of or a signatory to the Douglas treaties, would you see that affecting the priority as you start being faced with a number of claims? I expect you won't be able to settle all of them simultaneously. You're going to have to somehow decide which you're going to choose first. I'm wondering whether or not you're going to be influenced by the fact that the claimant might already be a signatory to or beneficiary of a treaty.

Hon. A. Petter: The principal criterion we will be looking for in terms of priority is not only readiness to negotiate but readiness in terms of the preparatory work that has been done and the issues that have been resolved. I certainly don't envisage at this time that the question of the Douglas treaties is affecting priorities, but I don't preclude it. I would just point out that there is some irony here in the sense that the previous government argued in court that the Douglas treaties were of limited, if any, validity. In a sense, that legal position suggests that the Douglas treaties ought not to, in any way, preclude our engaging in treaty negotiations.

However, I haven't considered this question in any depth or detail, and all I would say at this point is that the process is certainly open for those who fall within that area. The principal approach to the priority of the Treaty Commission -- we will be looking to the guidance of the commission -- will have to do with readiness to negotiate. If additional arguments or considerations come into it, including the Douglas treaties, then I will no doubt consider those as they arise.

[4:15]

J. Weisgerber: I wasn't necessarily suggesting that you should or shouldn't give priority to bands that are considered to be beneficiaries of the Douglas treaties; I was curious about your approach to it. It seems to me that the logical extension of those questions is how the same kinds of criteria apply in the Treaty 8 area. I would be curious to know whether any of the claimants are of the Treaty 8 bands and whether or not the minister would treat Treaty 8 bands in the same way he would treat those under the Douglas treaties or those who don't have the benefit of a treaty at all.

Hon. A. Petter: The process is broad enough to allow Treaty 8 adhesion issues, for example, to be brought forward through the commission, but it doesn't preclude them from being dealt with separately as well.

As to how the relationship to Treaty 8 affects the priority, again, I don't have a fixed position on that. We would be looking to the commission for some guidance. One argument that can be made with respect to Treaty 8 adhesion -- you mentioned the Cloud Lake band some months or weeks ago when we talked -- is that those issues may be more readily resolved than comprehensive claims issues. That might be an argument for proceeding more quickly rather than less quickly.

The precise answer as to whether or not they ought to be dealt with through this process or another process,

[ Page 1086 ]

and what priority they should be given, is one that I don't have a fixed position on. I'm going to be looking to the Treaty Commission to give us some guidance on that and other related questions.

J. Weisgerber: That's fair enough. These are very difficult questions, and they underline somewhat just how complex the question is. Once you think you have the answer, somebody else comes along who has another question.

I suspect what's going to give the federal government particular difficulty is the notion that you would reopen the numbered treaties because of their implications for the rest of the country. I'm curious whether or not the province has put that question to Tom Siddon or his ministry yet.

Hon. A. Petter: A two-part answer. I personally haven't put the question directly to Mr. Siddon. However, insofar as the Treaty Commission process permits Treaty 8 issues to be raised, I suppose one can draw one's own conclusions.

J. Weisgerber: With regard to the federal responsibility, I understand we're envisioning a treaty-making commission, and I gather from the tenor of the minister's comments, and from the fact that I haven't heard any announcement of the actual creation of the commission, that it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps it's getting close to happening.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister envisions that negotiations with Ottawa -- i.e., shared responsibility, or the limit of government responsibility -- will take place under the treaty umbrella or will be a set of negotiations that don't involve aboriginal people directly, but are federal-provincial.

Hon. A. Petter: As I mentioned earlier in response to the Leader of the Opposition, we have already announced, in conjunction with the federal government, a cost-sharing negotiation -- federal and provincial -- that will operate outside of the ambit of the Treaty Commission. Obviously there's a relationship, in the sense that the issue of cost-sharing is very important and must be resolved before we can come to a conclusion on treaties. We've appointed a negotiator, and the federal government has done the same. Meetings have already taken place, and an initial schedule has been set -- not to reach a final conclusion, but to report on how the process to reach a conclusion by September might unfold. An interim report is expected in June, and a report on the process for reaching cost-sharing negotiations is expected in September.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister tell us who is negotiating? I'd be curious to know who the negotiators are, both for the federal side and for the provincial side. The point that I am curious about is that this is one of the very difficult issues facing us, and Ottawa seems to take a fairly dug-in position. I suppose that they feel the province is doing the same. It occurred to me, and I suggested it several times to Mr. Siddon, that one of the things we should do is refer the question of responsibility to the Supreme Court, and allow the Supreme Court to decide -- based on the terms of Confederation and union, and other historical agreements -- who should accept responsibility. It's a roll of the dice if you go with a reference, and it may be something that you want to think about only if negotiations don't progress satisfactorily.

So a couple of questions: who's representing us, and what are your thoughts on a reference?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess this news release didn't get the kind of circulation that I thought it did, because I answered the same question this morning. But I'm happy to do it again.

I understand that the federal representative has been a senior bureaucrat with the federal government for some time -- Fred Drummie -- and that the provincial representative is Mark Krasnick, who may be known to the leader of the third party. He was a former assistant deputy minister of intergovernmental affairs in British Columbia, and more recently worked in the aboriginal area at a deputy level in Ontario. He therefore has experience in both intergovernmental relations and aboriginal relations and, luckily for us, wished to come back to British Columbia and lend his expertise to this somewhat daunting task. Those are the individuals concerned, and I'd be happy to make a copy of the release available to you -- although I'm running out of them over on this side of the table.

With respect to the question of a reference to the Supreme Court, given that we are entering a period of negotiation -- and it is, as you suggested, a roll of the dice -- I would prefer to give negotiation a chance before we allow the Supreme Court, located as it is in Ottawa, to make the decision.

It seems to me that we can reach an agreement with the federal government; that the legal arguments are very important and will help us at the negotiating table. But at the end of the day, I think the chances are better here -- at the treaty table through negotiations, as opposed to through a reference to the Supreme Court or a litigated solution -- of getting a speedy and satisfactory resolution that we can all live with. However, if these negotiations ultimately do not prove productive, that is an alternative that can well be considered.

J. Weisgerber: I suspect that I did see the press release at one time. I believe that your choice of a negotiator for the province is a good one. I think he will serve us well in that capacity.

I'd like to move on to something a little bit different: what's been referred to, to the best of my knowledge, as pre-Confederation cut-off claims -- amendments to reserve boundaries prior to British Columbia joining Confederation. The most noteworthy of these, or the one that's received the most.... I shouldn't say the most noteworthy, because there are some very significant parts of British Columbia in terms of population density that are affected by these so-called pre-Confederation cut-off claims. But the one that's had the most attention is Schiedam Flats in Kamloops, and I'm wondering if the minister can give us any indication.... Perhaps I'm most interested in the government's ap-

[ Page 1087 ]

proach to these pre-Confederation cut-off claims, and then if we have a chance I'd be interested in some specifics on Schiedam Flats as well.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me start by saying that Schiedam Flats is not considered to be among those that have been officially recognized as cut-off claims. It falls into a different category. With respect to cut-off claims in general, the province has to date returned a total of 18,184.3 acres for the use and benefit of affected bands, and paid more than $7.3 million in compensation. Canada has paid compensation of approximately $24 million.

We are actively negotiating several of the remaining cut-off claims -- including Songhees, upper Similkameen and Nazko -- and I'm hopeful that we may be able to achieve some settlements. I don't want to prejudice the negotiations by promising any results, but we are hopeful that we might be able to achieve some further settlements in the coming year.

J. Weisgerber: I'm interested in that information, although I must confess I'm fairly well versed in the cut-off claims and the substantial progress that has been made on them. The cut-off claims dealt with the McKenna-McBride commission and the adjustments that it made to reserve boundaries in the early 1900s. There is a whole other set of questions that surround the Douglas days. I've got to struggle for the name of the commissioner who first laid out the tentative reserve boundaries. Trutch surveyed and staked out many of the reserves. It's my understanding that Douglas made provision for the reserves in areas; Trutch ultimately surveyed them, and quite often surveyed an area less than the total that Douglas originally provided for as an area suitable for establishing reserves.

There's clearly a lot of argument on this issue, but there are claims now surfacing by bands that follow the argument that the areas laid out by Douglas originally were what should have, at the end of the day, been the reserve boundaries. The Kamloops band is a fairly graphic example of that, and Schiedam Flats, being the so-called hole in the centre of the doughnut, is the best example. I'm wondering whether this government and you as the minister are taking a fresh, different approach to the settlement of Schiedam Flats and other claims that had their genesis pre-Confederation.

[4:30]

Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer specifically with respect to Schiedam Flats. I'm not sure whether we're taking a fresh approach, but we certainly are approaching it with renewed energy. I know the previous government did take some steps to see if there could be a resolution of some of the ongoing differences over Schiedam Flats. There are difficulties because of various parties and interests, etc., being involved. I would say -- I'm reluctant to get into any detail -- that we have met and discussed the situation with a number of the parties through my ministry and other ministries. We are certainly interested in effecting a resolution of that issue. It does have considerable delicacy and sensitivity to it. I'm not claiming that miracles are going to be achieved, but we're certainly pursuing it with renewed energy.

J. Weisgerber: It's my recollection that the position of the former government was that these events had transpired prior to Confederation. While there might be some argument for cost-sharing those events that took place after Confederation, pre-Confederation claims clearly should be the responsibility of the federal government. They were quite specifically covered by the terms of union. I'm wondering if that's still the position of the government today.

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding of the previous government's position.... Up until the very last few days of the previous government, an important shift was that the province ought not to bear costs on any of these issues or negotiations, with perhaps the exception of the cut-off claims. My understanding is also that the previous government did take some initiatives to try to bring about a resolution of the Schiedam Flats issue. That's what we're trying to do. I don't disagree that the primary responsibility should be that of the federal government, but I don't think that means we should not pursue it in every way we can to try to bring about a resolution.

R. Chisholm: My last question, with reference to the same question as before, is: what amounts of money are being directed towards the educational system in the Ministry of Agriculture? With the Western Indian Lending Fund, what amounts of money are involved there?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the first question, the funding for education and agricultural assistance does not come out of my ministry; it would come out of the Ministry of Agriculture or perhaps the Ministry of Advanced Education. Questions could more properly be directed to that minister. We do provide some support and assistance to those ministries, and try to assist them in dispensing their funds, but the funding doesn't come out of my ministry.

With respect to the latter question, it's difficult to answer, because our arrangements are with All Nations Trust, and All Nations enters into subarrangements with other lenders, including the agriculture lender. I'll give you a ballpark figure -- don't hold me to it: about $700,000 was allocated last year. I'd be happy to follow up with All Nations and get a more specific figure for the amount allocated through the agricultural lending institution.

K. Jones: Hon. minister, I'd like to just explore one other area that I'm not sure has been touched on. I was not here all the time, having been in the other House. Do Metis and non-status Indians come under your jurisdiction, first of all?

Hon. A. Petter: This isn't a trick question, I hope.

K. Jones: No, it's very straightforward.

[ Page 1088 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The word "jurisdiction" always gets me a little jumpy. It's the provincial government's position that the constitutional jurisdiction for Metis and non-status Indians is that of the federal government, under section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867. But I take it you mean jurisdiction in the sense of whether my ministry has an interest in, and a responsibility for, delivering provincial programs to those groups, as it does for other groups. The short answer is yes.

K. Jones: I'm glad you gave me that all-encompassing description; it really helped a lot to get that clarified. There's a considerable regrouping of the Metis people. They're starting to organize. They've had quite scattered representation here in British Columbia, and now they're starting to come together in a united organization. They're starting to articulate their concerns more, and the need to recognize themselves as a special cultural entity. They're talking about having some form of self-government and a voice in the extension of their culture, and getting it passed on to the younger members of their community. Do you have any programs, or have you got any plans, to work in that area?

Hon. A. Petter: I would first of all just confirm what the member has indicated about Metis organizations and peoples in British Columbia starting to develop a greater consciousness and organizational presence. When I attended the aboriginal affairs ministers' meeting in Toronto, the Metis National Council letterhead had blacked out those areas of the country that were covered by Metis organizations. B.C. was excluded, yet one of the spokespeople was from the Pacific Metis Federation of B.C. I asked him about this. I said: "Aren't you worried about this?" He said: "Oh yes. We got another run of letterhead, and B.C. will be covered in the next run." So clearly the organizational picture has changed, and there is a greater attempt by Metis people within B.C. to establish themselves organizationally and to link up with national Metis organizations. Although there are still a number of different groups, it's not all under one umbrella.

Now with respect to Metis self-government.... I did answer some of this earlier, but I'm happy to reiterate in brief that the Metis National Council is involved in the constitutional talks. I have had some discussions of a very preliminary nature with some of the Metis organizations in the province. We have provided through the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs some funding for Metis organizations to engage in their own consultation within the province, to participate in self-government deliberations constitutionally and more broadly -- or the results of those consultations may be applied more broadly.

I anticipate that they, along with some of the off-reserve status and non-status groups, will wish to negotiate, to engage in discussions with the provincial government, to gain a greater degree of self-determination. However, I think it's freely acknowledged even by the Metis organizations themselves that they are in the fairly early days of establishing their organizational structure and getting a sense of who they represent. We are, I think, just at the beginning of that process.

K. Jones: I agree that they're at the very beginning, or have made very good progress. I understand that they had quite a drawing-together this October and are now advancing their unity well and also their positions on forms of self-government and cultural development.

A couple weeks ago I was able to attend one of their functions, which was a workshop in Cloverdale. I was fortunate to be invited to attend the dinner and the cultural event afterwards, where we had some very lovely Metis dancing and also joined with some of the aboriginal community, to celebrate with them in a joint concert and an evening of music and dancing. With that, it appears that they.... I understand they've worked out the differences between the Louis Riel association and the Pacific, and that they are now joining under one leadership or one voice, and that they also had representation from the national organization at this meeting. With regard to that, how does your ministry see Metis self-government developing, and what form would it come in?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, this harks back to some of the questions that your leader asked earlier about off-reserve non-status groups and the difficulty of providing self-government to organizations that do not have a land base. In the case of the Metis, by and large in this province many of those who are claiming Metis status are off of any reported land base. That may not be entirely the case; I understand that there is a Metis community in the north, for example, that may have some relationship to the land. That raises the question of how we provide for self-government in the context of a group that may be urban-based or off of a traditional land base.

The way we will approach that is by starting to look at the ways in which programs can be delivered and evolved over two groups, once it's clear that those groups have the support of the community and we can reach agreements that assure us that both the interests of the group concerned and the public interest are being met, and that the programs are being provided in a way that is consistent with our concerns to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent.

I'm shorthanding a very long set of discussions I had with the leader of the UNN and some other groups. I would reinforce the fact, because it is our position that the Metis fall within federal responsibility under section 91-24 -- incidentally, that is the Metis position as well -- that any negotiations we engage in with the Metis on self-government must, in our view, involve the federal government and be based on the principle that the federal government bears the primary responsibility, so as not to have it become yet another opportunity for the federal government to offload its responsibilities onto the province.

It is an area that is new and requires some creative thinking. I'm looking at the self-government discussions around the constitutional table for some guidance as to what self-government might mean for Metis, and we will then have to explore together -- that is, the

[ Page 1089 ]

federal and provincial governments, the Metis and the people of the province as a whole -- how we can give Metis people a greater degree of self-determination and self-control over their own destinies, in a way that is consistent with the objective of trying to maintain social cohesion, etc., within the province.

[4:45]

K. Jones: How do you visualize a self-government process without a land base? Is that a possibility in your thinking?

Hon. A. Petter: The example I could point to, as a sort of fledgling example, anyway.... One that has been talked about is the URBAN organization in Vancouver, which is acting as an umbrella organization to deliver a variety of services -- social services, counselling services and other services -- to off-reserve aboriginal peoples. That umbrella organization has within its umbrella a number of different agencies and groups. It is trying to coordinate those agencies and groups in such a way that they can provide to aboriginal peoples services and programs that will meet the needs of the peoples better than could be done by the provincial or federal governments. That's an example of a form of self-government and an organization which can provide services to aboriginal peoples -- in this case, not Metis; although there may well be Metis involved in that overall organization -- and reflects a view of self-government or self-determination, but obviously operates without any land base.

K. Jones: If you're going to give self-determination and self-government, isn't there also a need to be self-financing and capable of being independent and standing alone? How do you feel that that could be accommodated in the situation of not having a land base?

Hon. A. Petter: I am engaging in future thinking. I am cautioned by the Chair not to engage in too much of that, but I'll take a risk and do a little.

There are a number of ways of achieving self-sufficiency for aboriginal organizations. One, obviously, for first nations that do have a land base is through treaty negotiations that relate to that land base and perhaps opportunities within the traditional territory that are land-or resource-related.

Another way for aboriginal peoples who exist off the land base is to look at ways in which we can redistribute tax revenues so as to give some global funding or budgeting to those organizations that is proportionate to their share of the overall population. Your leader has suggested that core funding should be provided to organizations like URBAN and United Native Nations to allow them to engage in the delivery of services. So one way of ensuring self-sufficiency without a land base is to come to some kind of negotiated agreement whereby those who choose to participate would forgo social benefits from the provincial or federal government in exchange for a transfer of revenues that would otherwise fund those benefits to some other organization that would then dispense them in ways that are better suited to aboriginal peoples. One has to be very careful here, because there may be aboriginal peoples who would prefer that option and some who would prefer not to have that option. One has to be sensitive, particularly off of the land base, that people, including aboriginal peoples, have choice.

But certainly there is this possibility that -- and here I'm sharing with you a possibility; it's not government policy -- you could have an aboriginal organization in which those people who participate in it voluntarily are able to negotiate through the organization for a share of tax revenue that is proportionate to the value that they are forgoing in benefits they would receive from the federal and provincial governments. By doing that, the organization then gets those funds to dispense in a way that the members of that organization view as more consistent with their goals of self-determination and self-sufficiency.

That would all have to be negotiated. It would have to be done with the federal government and with the participation of the larger community. The larger community would want to be assured that this kind of arrangement was not disruptive to the general programs being provided to citizens at large and that it could coexist in harmony. But provided that those very difficult questions can be addressed, it is a model that has some promise to it, and we're just starting to explore it. I mentioned earlier that we will be assisting in a conference -- hopefully at the University of Victoria -- to look at off-reserve self-government, and some of those principles may be applicable to Metis as well as non-status. That was a little free thinking, which I appreciate the Chair allowing me to indulge in.

K. Jones: I'm doing a little free thinking too, and I appreciate your openness. We all have to do that to try and come to a common satisfactory answer to this question that's been ongoing for many years.

Could you give us some visualization of the situation that would occur if the people wanted to have some sort of land base associated with an agreement for the Metis or the non-status?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure I'm going to be particularly helpful in this regard. One possibility, obviously, is that aboriginal peoples located off historic territory or land base could, if given the resources, acquire land for a land base. But that would have to be something that was negotiated. We would have to be very careful in those negotiations. There is a difference in respect of those first nations who clearly have a relationship with a particular territory and are basing certain historic claims with respect to that territory -- I use the term aboriginal title; others may prefer the term aboriginal rights with respect to that territory -- and those who are asserting a right of self-government that doesn't relate to any particular historic relationship with any particular land. For that group, negotiations could lead to elements of acquisition of property here or there, but they don't inexorably lead to questions relating to land in the same way that treaty negotiations concerning land do intrinsically involve the question of land resources.

[ Page 1090 ]

K. Jones: I would like at this point to thank the minister for his very fine response to the series of questions that have been placed before him, and I would like to say that he has been most forthright in bringing forward his responses. I would also like to extend our thanks and gratitude to the support staff -- your ministry people -- who have been here throughout this period and have given you the support needed to be able to give this type of response.

We'll conclude this session....

The Chair: We have another speaker. The Chair will recognize the hon. leader of the third party.

J. Weisgerber: I apologize for giving you the impression that I was done. In fact, obviously I'm not.

Along the lines of the questions, I want to touch on two or three areas; I promise not to take too long. One of the issues I did want to raise with the minister was the future service delivery for the residents of Good Hope Lake. If the minister is not aware of that situation, a number of people live off reserve in their traditional territory adjacent to the town of Cassiar. The province has decided that it will continue to provide service as long as non-aboriginal people live in Cassiar, but this community of about 200 people who are off reserve depends on schools, hospitals and other services at Dease Lake and has no services; nor does it have access to federal support. I'm wondering what the government hopes to do in that regard.

Hon. A. Petter: I am aware, but only in the most general sense, of the situation. I'm aware that my ministry has been actively involved in meeting with and dealing with the concerns of the Good Hope Lake peoples and that we have been addressing those concerns through other ministries, trying to ensure that services are maintained. We intend to continue to do so.

J. Weisgerber: Is it my understanding, then, that it is the intention of the government either to continue to maintain a service base in Cassiar for the people of Good Hope Lake or to move those services perhaps closer to the community, or in some way to recognize that there is an ongoing responsibility not only to the people who live in Cassiar but to the people who make up the broader community of Cassiar -- namely the people of Good Hope Lake. I guess what I'm looking for is some indication for those people that the province intends to continue to maintain some level of service in the area. I would note that several years ago the people of Ingenika found themselves in a position where they were abandoned by the federal government because they'd moved off reserve. It was a number of years before the province took any action to deal with it. I'm hoping that that kind of situation wouldn't be allowed to exist or to be created in today's environment.

Hon. A. Petter: It's my understanding that the intention is not to maintain services in Cassiar but to try to address the concerns of the Dease Lake band in Good Hope Lake. In that regard my ministry has been coordinating efforts with a number of ministries: the Ministry of Attorney General, the Ministry of Health ambulance services and Advanced Education. I'd be very happy to provide a status report to the leader of the third party that would bring him into the picture of what we have done and where the situation is at. I think that's probably a more efficient way than my trying to lift the information from the material that has been provided to me.

J. Weisgerber: Certainly that would be satisfactory. I'd be interested in looking at that.

The final set of questions that I'd like to pursue is around the new factum filed in the Gitksan case. We've now had an opportunity to examine the factum, at least in a cursory sort of way. Quite honestly, we're surprised at the significant change in position that the government is taking with the new factum and with new legal counsel, as opposed to the position that was successfully argued in the case itself. My concern is that it appears to us that taking a position so significantly changed from the position that was successfully argued the first time around on behalf of the province would have the effect of opening up a new trial; that if the court were to allow the province to take such a radically different position in appeal than it took in its successful arguments, then it would be very difficult to constrain the arguments of the other party, and it could in fact throw the whole thing open not to a ruling on law by Chief Justice McEachern but to a new trial. I'm curious as to what kind of advice the government has.

I must say that I find it somewhat unusual to be arguing a case that.... In most cases the government would have long ago taken a position that it was sub judice and not open to debate. But on the other hand, I find myself in a situation where we've had two ministerial statements and a number of editorials by the minister related to the case, so I feel almost an obligation to start to pursue the arguments in a public way. I'm a bit uncomfortable doing that, but I feel that it's important that we do.

[5:00]

Hon. A. Petter: I think it's important that we not say anything that in any way could prejudice the litigation or be critical of the court process per se. Given that there was a change -- and it is an important matter of public policy -- I think the government has an obligation to explain to the public what the position is and why it has taken that position; equally, I think it's important that the opposition has an opportunity too. But we have to be careful, I guess, particularly because the litigation is so near, not to overstep what is a somewhat treacherous line. In some respects, the questions you asked do go to some of the legal dimensions of the case that I think would be better directed to the Attorney-General: whether or not a change in position results in the necessity of some new action.

What I would say is this: I think one has to differentiate between the response we have taken to the appellant's claim and the theory we're offering in response to the appellant's claim. In other words, the appellants are making certain assertions as part of their

[ Page 1091 ]

claim. The position of the previous government and of this government is that those assertions should not be made out. I'm giving you a thumbnail sketch, but those assertions are of outright ownership and sovereignty over the land in question.

What countertheory is provided by the respondents -- the government, in this case -- in response to that? The previous government's countertheory was one of either the non-existence of aboriginal rights or the complete extinguishment of aboriginal rights. Our countertheory is markedly different; I don't disagree with you on that. It is that there have been and continue to be certain aboriginal rights, and there has been no blanket extinguishment of those rights. I don't see how that fundamentally alters the character of the litigation. It changes some of the legal propositions offered in this countertheory. But at the end of the day -- and here's where I am going to draw the line in the dirt -- it's going to be for the court to decide whether or not the change in arguments fundamentally alters the character of the litigation. It's not for me as minister to comment or second-guess the courts on their decision.

The other point I would make is that the government has gone out of its way to indicate its willingness to assist the court through the provision of an amicus curiae. The court can have available, if it considers it necessary, all of the arguments it requires to support the trial judge's position as articulated in the trial judgment. As to the legal question of whether or not that changes its character and results in the necessity of a new trial, that seems to me to be a question that has to be left for the court to decide. I'm not going to attempt to answer it now.

J. Weisgerber: Three points were raised that I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about. It just seems logical to me that if the province is going to go and argue a significantly different position in the appeal -- and a comparison of the factums indicate that clearly the government is going now to argue that our position as a government, not necessarily as a party, was incorrect in the first case, and they're coming to argue a new set of circumstances.... It would also seem logical that if the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en were unsuccessful in their first set of arguments, they might want to come and say that they've changed their minds too and want to argue their case from a different angle as well. The logical conclusion to that would be that instead of an appeal based on the decision of the Chief Justice, you're into a new trial, with each party arguing a different set of arguments. I'll hear what the minister has to say about that.

Hon. A. Petter: It would seem to me that a necessity for a new trial would be if there were some new facts or whatever, but the arguments here are confined to law. All we've really done is provide the court with an additional theory of the case, one that maintains the basic position that the appellants' case should not succeed but provides an alternative theory as to why it should not succeed and what rights there are. It's for the court to make the ultimate decision as to the correct legal position, not for us; it's for us to present arguments. All we've done is provided greater assistance to the court in making that ultimate decision. They now have the benefit of yet another legal argument which they can choose to adopt or reject. They have at the same time the same arguments that were presented at trial -- the arguments of the appellants and the arguments that were embraced by the trial judge. If there is any concern in the court that those arguments will not be fully represented through the judgment of the trial judge, we are quite prepared to make available to the court, as the Attorney General has indicated, counsel who will argue fully and vigorously, with full knowledge of the case, that the trial judgment should be upheld on its own terms.

J. Weisgerber: With that point of view in mind, I would be curious to know, if there were a third party that would feel that they might be affected by a change in position by the government, and if that party were to wish to go as an intervener to the court and argue that the original position of the government was correct, if the minister and the Attorney General would oppose that intervention. Would the minister oppose an intervention by a peripherally affected third party who wanted to argue, in fact, that the original arguments put forward by the government were correct?

Hon. A. Petter: In addition to being careful not to overstep the bounds between explaining the province's position and engaging in a discussion that in any way prejudices the outcome of the court case, I must also be careful not to overstep the bounds between my responsibility as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the responsibility of the Attorney General. It seems to me that the question about the conduct of the litigation and who might or might not be invited or supported to be an intervener clearly falls on the far side of that line -- over which I choose not to cross.

J. Weisgerber: I'm aware of those concerns, but it seems to me at the end of the day that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is the one whom I suspect is driving the changes that have been put forward, so I was curious as to his thoughts about an intervener party.

I would like to comment, while I'm at it, on some of the editorial comments made by the minister, as they relate to the decision by the Chief Justice in the Gitksan case. I've heard and read on more than one occasion that the Chief Justice was faced with the difficult position of supporting either the argument of the Gitksan Wet'suwet'en or the argument of the province, and that he had no middle ground if he wished to seek a compromise position. In all fairness, I think that's misleading. The Chief Justice of British Columbia, after spending a year or so hearing the arguments and several months writing his decision, could have come to a logical decision that was not a holus-bolus support for one side of the argument or the other. It's important for British Columbians to understand that he wasn't there simply as a referee to decide yes or no; he was there to provide a decision.

[ Page 1092 ]

Hon. A. Petter: It's difficult to capture the nuance that one wants in an editorial commentary; it's true. I would say this: the traditional view, as I understand it and as it's taught in the law schools, is that judges by and large make decisions based upon the legal arguments that are presented before them. It's true that in the constitutional arena and in these days of greater latitude in all fora, judges do tend to be more creative. We could point to examples of that happening. It's true; there is latitude. The judge could have come to some middle-ground position of his own creation. For example, the fiduciary obligation was not argued in the judgment. But that doesn't negate the fact that this traditional view still exerts a strong force.

Judges do feel constrained not to be creative. They are, after all, there to judge the law, based on the arguments placed in front of them. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that a judge who is presented with two rather polarized views would feel constrained by those views to some extent and would feel some strong desire to base a decision on the arguments that were made to him.

Perhaps we can agree that there is some greyness. I hope the member will concede that the traditional view of the way the law operates would suggest that judges do make decisions based on the legal arguments that are presented to them. Where those arguments tend to be polarized, that does restrict, in practical terms, some of the options that might otherwise be available. The Court of Appeal is in a better position to look at a variety of legal alternatives now that it has the opportunity to have a new legal position in front of it. How can that hurt? If we're looking to the courts to provide the correct legal result, how can it hurt to provide them with more arguments so they can better evaluate all of the alternatives?

J. Weisgerber: I suppose that's one of those arguments that may well be used by those folks who would like to intervene and present the traditional argument for the court to hear once again. The minister hit on the example of the Chief Justice assigning a fiduciary responsibility to the province -- something that wasn't argued by either party. The encouragement of the Chief Justice to go to negotiations and to move the issue out of the court and into the political arena for settlement would indicate, although not as strongly as the creation of the fiduciary responsibility.... The Chief Justice was very well aware of his capabilities. He knew when he prepared his judgment that he could have found some middle ground. Not only did he look at the arguments, but if you read his judgment, he considered the situation carefully. The Chief Justice's language was strong. The Chief Justice's language surprised people more than his decision. Perhaps the language that he used shocked people a little bit.

Having said all of those things, and having a great deal of respect for the Chief Justice, I believe that it was all done very consciously and very deliberately, the undertaking being to find the best possible solution, not only in the court but outside the court, to the issue that both you and I and a number of British Columbians are very interested in seeing resolved.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me say at the outset that I too have the greatest respect for the Chief Justice. I want to clarify something that has been suggested not by the leader of the third party but by a columnist -- that I was somehow suggesting otherwise. That's not the case. My respect for the Chief Justice is considerable, and in no way did I intend to suggest that he had not performed his role in anything but the most capable fashion.

In just one final response to the leader of the third party on this point -- I hope it's a final response; perhaps it isn't -- it seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either the arguments make it different, or they don't. If you're concerned about changes in the arguments before the court and who gets to make them, presumably it's because you believe that arguments make a difference to the court. You can't turn around and say: "The arguments really don't make a difference. The Chief Justice could have made whatever decision he wanted." If one believes that arguments make a difference, and therefore we attend to the fact that the major arguments presented were very polarized, by the force of your own logic you have to be drawn to the conclusion that the absence of a middle-ground argument had some impact. If it didn't, then you shouldn't be concerned about us making such an argument in the Court of Appeal.

[5:15]

J. Weisgerber: This is the sort of thing that could last forever. If my memory serves me right, the minister always gets the last word.

I suspect that I should wind this up rather quickly. In our opinion the decision by the Chief Justice did not necessarily provide a win that would be used as a club by the province; it helped to move us in a direction we were already going in. It would have been my preference to stay out the court, but failing that, to go and make the arguments as simple as they could be.

I recognize that this is like an argument with one's spouse: you rarely get the last word. So I'll sit down.

J. Tyabji: I hope that wasn't a sexist comment.

J. Weisgerber: You'll notice I didn't say wife.

Hon. A. Petter: If indeed we are close to the end of the debate on this, I would at least like to leave the member with something that he will view as positive news. I had an opportunity, thanks to my staff, to look at the request from the Fort Ware class to come down. I understand some $2,000 in additional funds is still required. There is some chance of their acquiring some of that funding from a private firm in the area, I understand.

J. Weisgerber: No, I don't think so.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, that's my understanding. In any event, I want to give you my assurance that we will be in touch with them. Certainly we'll encourage them to get whatever private funding they can get. If they can't secure additional private funding to cover this amount, I will do my best to ensure that they receive

[ Page 1093 ]

some assistance from this ministry, given the remoteness of the community and the concerns expressed earlier in debate. I think the leader of the third party has made a good case for the province to provide some measure of support to the Fort Ware class.

J. Weisgerber: Maybe there's a chance for the last word after all. [Laughter.] Just as a matter of clarification, I spoke to the school principal yesterday. The class needs $10,000, plus airfare from Fort Ware to Prince George. They've acquired donations of the airfare and all of the money, with the exception of $2,000, but they've tapped every source, and there are very limited sources in the area. They desperately need at least $2,000 to finish their funding requirements.

Hon. A. Petter: If that's the case -- I just want to make sure they have tapped all those sources -- then we will do our best to try to bridge that remaining gap so that they can engage in their field trip.

J. Tyabji: I apologize in advance if I'm asking questions that to some extent you may have answered previously, but obviously the focus I have is the interior. The situation we have there, which I'm sure you're familiar with.... We have the Westbank Indian band, which is a very independent, successful group; we have urban natives; we also have a native housing society. There are many players in the Kelowna native situation. That brings about many questions in terms of the philosophical direction of the ministry, not just in terms of this budget, but where this budget is taking us over the next four years.

The first thing that comes to mind.... We have a native courtworker named Tom Anaquod, who is now teaching a lot of native culture and language classes. What he finds is that more than 50 percent of the people in these classes are non-native. They're there out of interest because they'd like to learn something about native language and culture, which is a very positive thing. Obviously the more people know about the history of the aboriginal people, the better off we are as a society. I'm just wondering what kind of programs, if any, you have to increase access of the public to programs like that, whether it be through the public education system so there's no extra cost incurred, night courses or post-secondary education.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure the member is aware -- and if not, I'll clarify it, as I have before -- that my ministry doesn't deliver programs for the most part. It's largely a coordinating and advocacy ministry, and one that commences a process leading toward treaty negotiations and self-government negotiations.

However, we do advise other ministries, and my understanding is that the Ministry of Advanced Education does have some funds and some support that it provides for native language education. There is within my ministry the native heritage, language and culture program, which provides capital and operating grants to tribal councils to implement their own programs for the preservation of first nations languages. But that funding -- except in the most exceptional cases, I would imagine -- is directed exclusively toward aboriginal peoples, and the kind of program you're talking about would presumably be funded and supported in part at least by the Ministry of Advanced Education. You might want to direct some questions to the minister during his estimates on that particular component.

J. Tyabji: Talking about things like self-government and title, what I'm wondering is.... There are so many classifications with regard to the aboriginal peoples that it tends to interfere with public perception and proper understanding of the issue. The difficulty that I have in Kelowna is that there are often people who don't understand the issues of self-government, land title and land claims. I think it causes a lot of problems for the aboriginal peoples who are trying to further their own cause and get some measure of compensation for past injustices. Even though I know you don't deliver programs, does it fall under your ministry, for example, to promote some kind of public education about what the issues are and what you have in mind?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to respond to that. One of the primary roles of my ministry is to engage in programs that will facilitate a better understanding by non-aboriginal peoples and the community at large of the treaty process in particular and aboriginal issues in general, and to encourage feedback and interaction between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples in a general sense. One of the key recommendations of the task force report was that if treaty negotiations were to succeed, they had to succeed on the basis of understanding and interaction, not on the basis of misunderstanding and isolation of one community from the other.

Much of my budget -- we had earlier discussions about this allocation -- is directed towards providing that information directly. It is also directed through tripartite mechanisms like the Treaty Commission, which will be established and will dispense information through various negotiation mechanisms. Also, we will be making contributions to aboriginal groups to engage in their own forms of consultation and interaction with surrounding communities and others, and -- I made the point in a discussion with the leader of the third party -- in dispensing our own funds, will try as much as possible to involve aboriginal groups, organizations and media outlets in communicating that message. That is a very important function of this ministry. We view it as crucial in order to foster a better degree of interaction and understanding, so that treaty negotiations and other initiatives can proceed.

J. Tyabji: Could you help me understand this, then? If you do have money for programs to help non-natives understand aboriginal peoples, could not some of the previous programs I was alluding to with regard to information on culture and language also be put through that program, whereby you're expanding the base so it's not just a case of informing them of the historical context but so they actually get some feeling for the richness of the heritage that comes along with the aboriginal peoples?

[ Page 1094 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The line of demarcation isn't clear, because we do have some programs like the heritage, language and culture program and the First Citizens' Fund program. Beyond that, what we are concerned with here is information to try to facilitate better relations and understanding. If there was a better understanding of aboriginal cultures, and that was considered an important element in laying the groundwork for treaty negotiations and fostering better relations, that wouldn't be precluded.

Where the line gets crossed is when there's the actual delivery of an educational program which is designed to teach someone a first-nation language; it may be a little fuzzy in the sense that that will also benefit in the interaction. But by and large what we want to resist as a ministry is becoming a program delivery ministry -- a mini-Department of Indian Affairs delivering programs to first nations. What we want is to be a ministry that will assist first nations in getting other ministries to deliver programs that will promote better relations between first nations and aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginals peoples generally -- because that's a value in itself -- and hopefully also pave the way for a new relationship based on treaty negotiations, self-government, etc. When it comes to the actual delivery of particular programs to aboriginal peoples or to non-aboriginal peoples, that tends to fall under the responsibility of a line ministry.

J. Tyabji: In the Okanagan, we recently received what was being hailed as a landmark decision. You may be familiar with this; I'm sure you are. It is the Westbank Indian band's claim to lakeshore access. The interpretation of that decision has been up for quite a bit of argument lately. One of the areas that is difficult is that it falls under many different jurisdictions: the Indian band, the regional district, to some extent the city of Kelowna, and definitely the federal and provincial governments. The concern I have is that because of the difficulties.... There have been arguments on both sides regarding whether or not the Indian band should have this access. The interpretation originally presented was that the band owned the foreshore rights toward the middle of the lake, which is quite a large area. This caused a lot of concern for boaters. They weren't sure how to interpret it. Basically I'm looking for some clarification as to how you interpret this decision.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll give you my best understanding of it, and I would be happy to provide additional information in writing or in some other way -- through meeting with the member. My understanding is that it was a decision of the Assessment Appeal Board. The province was not a party to that decision, and therefore it doesn't have the same precedential value of, say, a court decision. Obviously it raises some serious concerns. My understanding is that there is an attempt to work out the disagreements through some negotiative process. I'd be happy to follow up on that and give you further information on the status of the decision and what the government is doing in response to it.

J. Tyabji: This will probably be my final question. Not having been around, I really don't want to bother you; I'll read Hansard and come to you personally for anything I've missed.

The last thing I'd like to know is to what extent the minister is planning to integrate aboriginal peoples into policies and programs by any form of affirmative action, whether through appointments to committees or through recommendations to either regional districts or municipalities for input in the planning process where it's applicable, particularly with regard to something like the native housing society's integration into the local community. At this point it is somewhat disjointed. How does the minister see in the next few years...? Is there a layout for a plan to have the whole thing run a lot more smoothly, by increasing the amount of input aboriginal people have at all the levels of decision-making?

[5:30]

Hon. A. Petter: I'll give a very general answer. We are concerned about taking initiatives to improve aboriginal representation and participation in a number of different areas. There was in this ministry, before I became minister, a program to try to place aboriginal people in bridging manager positions, so they could then go on to government. This government has also taken some initiatives -- I mentioned some of them earlier -- to have aboriginal representation on various advisory boards and commissions, to ensure that aboriginal peoples are fully involved. Certainly we'll be encouraging communities and others to look to aboriginal peoples and to try to involve aboriginal peoples as much as possible in decisions that affect aboriginal peoples' lives.

I guess the general answer is that we are committed to improving the access of aboriginals to programs and the participation of aboriginal peoples in government institutions in a variety of ways. I want to give credit to the previous government. They started along that path as well.

Vote 8: minister's office, $295,507 -- approved.

Vote 9: ministry operations, $12,203,493 -- approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:32 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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