1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 5
[ Page 6379 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. Speaker. We're very pleased to have visiting the Legislature today representatives from the British Columbia Council for International Cooperation. Visiting during question period are Peter Copping from Vancouver, Maeve Lydon from Victoria, Alison Gardiner from Victoria, Gulzar Samji from Vancouver and Britta Gundersen-Bryden from Victoria. They will be meeting with Members of the Legislative Assembly through the day, and we're very happy to welcome them to our assembly this afternoon.
J. Pement: It's my pleasure to introduce to you today, from the very beautiful community of Smithers, a grade 6 class from St. Joseph's School. I'm very pleased to see these young children come here to the Legislature today under the guardianship of their teacher, Miss B. Curren. I ask that the House welcome today this class and this group of young people to Victoria, the capital city of their province.
Hon. A. Petter: It's my great pleasure to welcome today to the House four of the five members of the B.C. Treaty Commission who were appointed last month. They are Chuck Connaghan, the chief commissioner, Carole Corcoran, Barbara Fisher and Dr. Lorne Greenaway who, along with Doug Kelly, will be serving this province, the federal government and the First Nations Summit in giving us guidance in the very tricky but no doubt worthwhile treaty negotiation process. I would ask the House to make them incredibly welcome.
Hon. P. Priddy: It's my pleasure to ask the House to welcome today Marcia Braundy, who is a key leader in a nationally respected organization called Women in Trades and Technology. She's also a member of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, and has stood very strongly beside women in this province in opening doors to apprenticeship in non-traditional trades. I would ask the House to make her welcome.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to ask the House to welcome some visitors from Montreal who are present in the gallery today. They are family of the chief of staff for the Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Bruce Murdock, his mother and his brother Sean. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. A. Edwards: In the gallery today is a group of students from Camosun College who recently took part in a Fuel Smart challenge event at Tillicum Mall in Victoria. I would very much like the House to recognize them and commend their efforts in promoting all aspects of energy efficiency and environmentally conscious driving habits.
We also have with us representatives of our Fuel Smart partner organization that I would like the House to recognize as well for their invaluable contribution.
From Camosun College are Ken Allen, Andre Ooievaar, Michael Corry, Frank Leversedge and Lynne Hahn; from Ensign Chrysler are Ron Edgar and Tony Green. Would members please help me make these people welcome.
Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Treaty Commission Act.
Hon. A. Petter: The Treaty Commission Act represents a final step in the process of establishing the British Columbia Treaty Commission. The act fulfils the central recommendation of the B.C. Claims Task Force and honours the commitment made last fall: the signing of the treaty commission agreement. At that time the First Nations Summit agreed to pass a resolution, and provincial and federal governments agreed to introduce legislation making the commission a legal entity.
The act, together with a parallel federal act and the First Nations Summit resolution, will give the commission the permanency and stability it requires to effectively carry out its mandate. Under the act, the commission is charged with the responsibility to oversee and facilitate treaty negotiations in this province. The commission will coordinate the start of treaty negotiations and monitor ongoing negotiations, operating independently of governments and first nations.
The Treaty Commission Act will ensure that at long last we have an enduring, made-in-B.C. process for negotiating just and honourable treaty settlements with first nations in this province.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PROVINCE-WIDE SCHOOL BARGAINING ACT
L. Hanson presented a bill intituled Province-wide School Bargaining Act.
L. Hanson: This bill recognizes the reality of public school bargaining in our province today. One organization, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, represents public school teachers throughout the province. This bill reflects the approach to bargaining being recommended by B.C.'s local school trustees by providing a framework for flexible bargaining while guaranteeing that the province has the right to determine which bargaining issues have such a predominant impact province-wide as to justify central bargaining. To make that determination annually, it allows for revisions to the bargaining structure following consultation with employee-employer organization reps. Finally, it permits the province to take a role at the bargaining table, but only to the extent it deems essential under the
[ Page 6380 ]
circumstances. This bill provides the mechanism to establish a balance between local authority and the need to protect the provincial taxpaying public's interests at the same time.
I move that the bill be read a first time now.
Bill M220 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
WELFARE FRAUD
A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Social Services. Given the revelation in recent weeks about widespread welfare fraud and abuse, the statements of two RCMP officers in Surrey now look quite credible, while the minister's impression that only 1 percent engage in fraud is actually appearing quite incredible. Will the minister now come to grips with the fact that her own 1 percent figure is way off the mark, and offer leadership and support to her staff by giving us a precise target and date by which fraud and abuse will be reduced?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure where the question is there, but I'm more than happy to share information at any time, including during question period. Let me share with the member the definition of fraud. Fraud is when someone has purposely misled either a system or an individual. One percent...
Interjections.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Are you interested in the answer?
The Speaker: Order please, hon. members. The question was listened to in relative silence, and I am sure the House would like to accord the same courtesy to the minister answering. Please proceed, minister.
Hon. J. Smallwood: ...is detected fraud in the system. I have never said that it is the only fraud in the system. We have set about from day one to develop the types of initiatives necessary to account for and control the system. Any fraud is too much fraud.
[2:15]
A. Warnke: Maybe the hon. minister can quibble with what was said, but she sure implied that that was what was involved.
We also hear that many people are convinced that the report on welfare fraud is accurate. Perhaps the Premier is the only one who says it's nonsense. We also hear that ministry staff are discouraged from reporting cases of suspected fraud and abuse. Therefore my question to the Minister of Social Services is: has the minister issued a written directive that all cases of suspected fraud are to be reported and followed up?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm well aware that the member is not familiar with all of the workings in the ministry, but let me provide you with some information. Our ministry is governed by a piece of legislation both provincially and federally. The provincial legislation is the GAIN Act, and the federal legislation is the Canada Assistance Plan.
We are governed in this ministry by the law, and we carry out that law. That law and the policies that flow from it govern the conduct of both me and the staff within the ministry. The staff is expected to report any concerns that they have. They are governed by strict regulations to do so, and that reporting system is through the investigation staff. There is ongoing feed-back to them by the investigators as well as a monthly reporting to my office.
WELFARE PAYMENTS MANAGEMENT
J. Weisgerber: My question is also to the Minister of Social Services. Currently Vancouver is the only area in which unemployment insurance claimants are cross-referenced with welfare applicants or claimants. Can the minister advise us why the ministry restricts these cross-checks to Vancouver and doesn't examine it province-wide to identify the abuse that may exist in other parts of the province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I will take that question on notice and bring extensive information back to the House.
WELFARE FRAUD
K. Jones: To the Minister of Social Services. A front-line social worker is quoted as saying that welfare money is being used for trips to Mexico. Other workers indicate that they have files on people living in Malta, Hong Kong and Boston. When will the minister provide the information on the number of people outside B.C. who are collecting welfare?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me tell you first of all that I would be very concerned if any employee within the ministry or any person in the public who was aware of such abuse did not act on it. The information that you're quoting is anecdotal. The message in the ministry is very clear that if there are such concerns, there is an expectation that they are reported and thoroughly investigated.
K. Jones: Will the minister admit that providing welfare recipients with picture ID would go a long way toward eliminating a major portion of the fraudulent claims?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have absolutely no intentions of dealing with one-off examples. We in this ministry are engaged in an extensive and comprehensive look at fraud and abuse, and we have been engaged in that process for the last 18 months. I'm interested in systemic change. I'm interested in supporting and developing a system that is accountable and able in the best possible way to deliver the tax dollars to those most in need.
[ Page 6381 ]
WELFARE PAYMENTS TO SINGLE EMPLOYABLE MEN
R. Neufeld: There are currently some 73,000 single employable men who are on welfare -- the fastest-growing category. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that those able-bodied individuals are actively looking for work?
The Speaker: Can the Chair assume that that question is directed to the Minister of Social Services?
R. Neufeld: The Minister of Social Services.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm happy to share that information once again with this member. In this budget year we have accessed and invested $80 million in employment and training. That is a recognition that in many small towns in this province there are not opportunities for young, single people. So we are providing those opportunities. Again, Mr. Member, it is the law that if persons on income assistance do not actively seek work and take advantage of those opportunities, they will be cut off.
R. Neufeld: Well, Mrs. Member, nearly four years ago the former government sent a letter to all single employable welfare recipients that was successful in reducing welfare caseloads. The minister will remember that the letter didn't affect single parents or couples with children. But it did require employable welfare recipients to provide the government with a list of the places they had applied for jobs. Is the minister now prepared to issue a similar letter?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, I'm sorry that my critic isn't aware of the fact that we have in the last number of months initiated a reporting system. Every time a person on income assistance receives a cheque from this ministry, there is a cheque stub. So there is a regular monthly reporting, Mr. Member -- not a one-shot deal, but a regular, monthly reporting -- of additional income and status for that account. As I said, it is expected and it is required by law that people eligible for income assistance who are of employable status look for work, and that is followed up by FAWs.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: It's obvious the minister missed the point of the question, but we'll try again. The minister called Claude Richmond's letter irresponsible and slammed it for being hardhearted. Does the minister think it's a responsible use of tax dollars to pay out welfare without even knowing if able-bodied recipients are looking for work? Does she advocate following Ontario's example, where the government shells out cash for life -- no questions asked?
LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Labour. We're now in the second week of the strike in Vancouver, with 54,000 students out of classes. The question is whether the minister is willing to let the Vancouver strike continue for six weeks, like he did the North Island dispute, or is he going to step in this week and settle this dispute right away?
Hon. M. Sihota: The political opportunism of the Liberals ceases to amaze me. The hon. member referred to the strike in North Island. It's interesting to note that during the course of the Powell River strike the hon. member never once raised that issue in this House. I at least give credit to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who discussed the issue with me on several occasions.
With regard to the situation in Vancouver, I'm pleased to report to the hon. member that I had the opportunity yesterday to meet with the trustees from the school board in Vancouver, had a lengthy discussion with them with regard to the dispute that is occurring right now in Vancouver and looked at possible solutions to that dispute. As a consequence, Mr. Foley is meeting, as we speak, with the school board to discuss solutions in an expedited way to resolve that dispute so that children can get back to school as soon as possible.
G. Farrell-Collins: Supplemental, hon. Speaker. I remind the minister that this opposition has been bringing up questions on labour disputes in this province, particularly in education, for the last seven weeks, and this minister has refused to do a darned thing to get students back into school.
The Speaker: Order, please. I call the House to order and ask the member to state his question.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know how many times we have to bring it up in this House, day after day, to finally get this minister to deal with the problem. How much longer is he willing to let the Vancouver students and other students around this province stay out of school before he finally takes some concrete action to get them back into classes?
Hon. M. Sihota: All of the defensive, theatrical language in the world won't get the hon. member the headline that he's looking for.
The fact of the matter, which the hon. member would never want to confess to, is that this government has taken a series of actions to try to bring this dispute to an end. Those actions commenced, even before the strike occurred, when we met with the BCTF and the BCSTA. Then they occurred the following Monday, when the dispute arose; we met with both parties and asked Mr. Foley to be involved. They continued, with the special mediator being involved, six days ago. Then after that, Mr. Foley made some good recommendations with regard to the dispute. Eighty-four percent of the teachers who voted in Vancouver voted to accept his recommendations. Four trustees in Vancouver voted against those recommendations, and as a consequence, children are out of school. The hon. member wants to know about the actions that we took. We took
[ Page 6382 ]
additional initiatives to meet yesterday with the school board, to impress upon....
The Speaker: I hope the hon. minister is coming to his final statement.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
We took additional action at that point. In addition to that, the hon. member should know that the trustees are meeting with a mediator today, as we speak, and if further action is required tomorrow, we'll take it.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.
Final supplemental, hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: The people and the students in the province are well aware of this foot-dragging and of the baby steps that this minister is taking in an attempt to not offend the BCTF executive. When will the minister finally realize that he has a higher duty in this province, and that duty is to the students and the parents in this province? When will he finally take some concrete action? How much longer are we going to have to wait?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, had it not been for our recognition of our duty to parents, students and those involved in the education system, we would not have taken the steps that we've taken to date. And if it had not been for the recognition of that duty, we would not continue to plan the steps that we may need to take in the future.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, before I call Committee of Supply, I wish to advise all hon. members that we will have the report from the committee with regard to the Attorney General's ministry. Concurrently, Committee of Supply A will deal with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks estimates. On the conclusion of that, we will have the continuation of the Ministry of Economic Development Committee of Supply.
I call Committee of Supply with regard to the Attorney General's estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, perhaps the minister has misstated himself, and I would like to clarify this. Quite clearly, when Committee A is reporting the resolution of estimates, this House is supposed to be sitting in its entirety, and estimates are not supposed to be taking place in Committee A. That's the whole process behind the time that we have allowed for Committee A to report. So perhaps we won't call those estimates until later.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's a fair point, and the Ministry of Environment will not commence until such time as the Ministry of Attorney General is completed here.
The Speaker: The Chair is clarified on that point. I would now call on the representative from the third party on the reporting of Committee A estimates.
[2:30]
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
C. Serwa: It was a pleasure to participate in the debate on estimates of the Attorney General's ministry. It is the most important ministry to British Columbia, and a very large and complex ministry.
I am also pleased to note several things of historic significance before we go much further. It was with a great deal of pride that I was at the first committee meeting held in the Douglas Fir Room last year, which happened to also be the Attorney General's estimates. That was the first time that debate on estimates was held outside the Legislature in British Columbia. This year it was also significant that the Attorney General had his deputy minister respond to several questions, and that was also an historic first in the province and in the committee system. Perhaps it was a tentative first step, but a very much desired first step, and of incredibly strong significance to the estimates process in this Legislature.
I was particularly pleased with the response of the Attorney General and his staff with respect to the areas of responsibility of that ministry. The minister was straightforward and truthful in answering difficult questions squarely and head-on. All I can say is that I am quite satisfied that the estimates have been very well canvassed in the Ministry of Attorney General. For those who would like to scrutinize the actual estimates process, I would suggest that they read and follow Hansard. I thank the Attorney General and the ministry staff for the comprehensive package of information in response to the questions that I put forward.
A. Warnke: As the critic for the official opposition, it was a pleasure -- as it was last year -- to review the estimates concerning the Attorney General. The laws and administration of justice are the most critical component and element of government as far as I'm concerned. The laws and administration of justice are extremely important for preserving our freedoms, establishing and enhancing the social order and providing, of course, for public safety. As the member for Okanagan West put forward, we had a unique experience this year, as we did last year. The Attorney General and I engaged in a first last year when we shifted the estimates into the second room; and we engaged in a little bit of history by having the deputy minister respond to a particular question that I put forward. I want to congratulate and commend Mr. Neal for the response. Perhaps, much like last year, it's still too early to make a full assessment as to the contribution in this area, but like my colleague from Okanagan West, I remain quite optimistic that this a a contribution and a step forward. Let us hope that -- in the spirit of the House -- we can actually move towards a reform here.
We covered a number of areas, but in sharp contrast to last year, when we tried to be exhaustive. There was
[ Page 6383 ]
a reason to be exhaustive, essentially to address a new administration and the restructuring of the ministry. This year we attempted to be a little bit more selective while at the same time appreciating that there are still changes in the structuring of the ministry, which I'm sure the Attorney General will elaborate on in his final remarks.
The purpose of the estimates this year was to explore those changes, but at the same time focus in on just a few areas in some detail. We did cover many subjects, whether it involved AirCare, school trustees, small claims, legal aid, or even the horse racing industry. I must admit I want to commend my colleagues on this side of the House who put forward a variety of questions which made the estimates most interesting. We canvassed a broad range of issues and subjects. On that basis I'm confident and satisfied that we've reviewed a number of aspects affecting the Attorney General.
Lastly, I also want to commend the Attorney General for the frankness and the candour of the remarks and answers that he put forward and the very straight-forward and honest manner in which he provided the answers to the committee as a whole and especially to myself.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I want to express my thanks to the two members for their comments in the House and also for their contributions to the discussion during the estimates which have taken place periodically over the last several weeks in Committee A. I also want to thank other members who participated in the estimates debates. Almost without exception, the questions were good and productive and led to a good exchange of views and opinions.
I want to take this opportunity to thank senior staff members of the Ministry of Attorney General who participated with us in the Douglas Fir Room. As members know, the Attorney General's ministry is large and diverse. As a result, we had quite a contingent of people there in order to make sure that I had the right answers to the many questions that came in all of those areas. I simply want to say to my staff how much I appreciate their help, not only during the estimates process but also each and every day. Staff who work in all government ministries all too often fail to get the kind of recognition they deserve. People who work for the public, providing the kind of public service they do, often work long hours, far beyond any requirement they have and certainly far beyond the compensation they get for the commitment and hours they put in. I just want to express my thanks certainly to my own staff, but also to all public servants, for the role they play.
I would just note in passing that we took what, I think, can fairly be described as a baby step toward reform in this Legislature by, for the first time, having the Deputy Attorney General actually speak to the committee. We didn't do much of it, but it's a start. We are all taking our time as we move in an evolutionary way to a new way of examining government programs and estimates. I think it's a good initiative, and one that will hopefully be expanded as time goes on.
The member for Richmond-Steveston made reference to restructuring in the Ministry of Attorney General. When we were elected in the fall of 1991, I presided over a merging of the previous Ministries of Solicitor General and Attorney General, with the addition of several other responsibilities, such as gambling and liquor, to the Attorney General's ministry. We spent some time consolidating the operations of the ministry as a result of that merger, and earlier this year we began to make the kinds of internal changes that will hopefully enable the ministry to better provide an effective justice system to British Columbians. During the estimates we discussed some detail of the restructuring.
I'll just say one word about my objectives, and again, we canvassed these at some length. I think it's true to say, as many commentators have said in recent years, that the justice system has not treated all people in our society with the egalitarianism that is required. Women and native people, in particular, have not had a fair shake in our system. For me, it's a priority to do whatever we can through our ministry to ensure that every citizen in our society gets fair and equal treatment. In order to do that, we have to develop programs to deal with the inequities that have been with us historically. As I said, that's particularly true about aboriginal and women's issues.
The member for Langley raised questions during committee relating to family justice -- custody, access and other family law matters -- and inquired as to our initiatives with respect to moving away from an adversarial to a more non-adversarial, non-court system for resolving family matters in particular, such as custody and access. I indicated to the member that that's one of the many initiatives we're looking at in an effort to try to make the system work more effectively for women and families in our society.
There are a great many challenges facing our ministry, as there are facing every ministry in government. I recognize how significant they are. Within the justice system, working together, we can begin the process of trying to make sure that the system is responsive and handles issues in an appropriate way.
Finally, may I say that on a number of occasions during the estimates, members raised questions which I felt needed further exploration and discussion. I invited members there, and I do so here again, to discuss issues of public policy with senior ministry staff in whichever area the members have an interest so that we can get better policies in place where they are warranted. I encourage all members to do that with senior staff in the Ministry of Attorney General, and when it gets to a certain stage that it requires my intervention, I would be very delighted to meet with any member who wants to pursue any of those issues.
I think that probably should conclude the Attorney General estimates for this year.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply. I should advise hon. members that Committee A will be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
[ Page 6384 ]
The House in Committee of Supply B; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS AND TRADE
(continued)
On vote 23: minister's office, $347,800 (continued).
L. Fox: Just prior to the lunch break, the minister and the Liberal critic were canvassing the British Columbia Investment Office. I listened with considerable interest to the questions and the answers.
The minister talked about the process of evaluation that was given to any particular initiative, particularly from outside the province, and the process that his office used in order to determine what role government should play -- whether government should be considering this as an investment opportunity and whether government should be playing an advocacy role or uniting an investor with a particular initiative. He came to a particular initiative that interested me, and I would like to hear more about the process used to do this. He spoke about the location of a steel mill in the Kootenays which was designed by the proponent for more of a coastal location where they could access the seaport -- I think I'm saying that correctly. A couple of issues and a couple of questions came to mind as the minister spoke on that. How did his ministry determine that the Kootenays was the more appropriate location versus other rural locations in the province, and what was the determining factor? The second question that came to mind during this discussion was whether or not there had been any kind of comprehensive detail as to what was limiting development of this nature in all regions of the province versus the highly populated areas of the province. I'll give the minister a chance to answer those questions.
[2:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If it wasn't particularly clear, we were talking about a couple of projects, and I think there might be room for confusion. The steel mill in the Kootenays is not an accurate description. There is talk about a project to provide feedstock for steel mills, and it's likely to locate either in the interior or on the coast. That's the more accurate statement.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There's the coast, the north and the interior.
The point is, certain things attract certain kinds of industries. Availability of power and of ore and supplies are the factors, and they are highly specific to the projects. When you talk about evaluation of the project, you have to understand that we make basic information available to the investment advisory board, and it's a general feeling by them, a general guidance; it's the general understanding of knowledgeable private sector and government people about the appropriateness of a certain site. The actual due diligence on the costs of operating in any location is something that happens down the line somewhere.
L. Fox: It seems to me that it's very easy to play politics with economic development and promote particular locations or ridings through government policy. My question, which I have to come back to because the minister didn't answer it, is: why was this particular initiative seen as something that could be accommodated in the Kootenay region versus the north, for instance, which has power available out of Hudson's Hope or Williston Lake dam? Excess power is also presently available from Kemano, although it has been sold to B.C. Hydro. So obviously power wasn't a determining factor with respect to the Kootenays. My question is whether there is some way of identifying limiting as well as positive factors in all regions of the province. I expect the minister to come back to me and say: "Yes, we have these regional development committees that were structured by the previous administration, and they have done economic development strategies in their respective areas." But I don't know that that's good enough. I would really like to know on what basis this particular project was seen as desirable for the Kootenays over other areas.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I corrected myself. I said that we had confused a couple of projects. In fact, the project I was thinking about was one that could be located in a number of areas. In the case of the project I was talking about, there's a certain amount of basic material available only in one location, one region. So it's availability of the raw material. You're right that power is available under different circumstances in different regions. Generally, it's available because B.C. Hydro has a surplus. But it's not always the case that a transmission line is available to a particular location. Those are factors.
You talk about playing politics with the location of projects. You know that in my riding, in one case your government offered a loan guarantee up front, even though there wasn't a private sector investment, and that project hasn't yet come to fruition. We hope it will, but provision of a loan guarantee doesn't always mean there's a project. Another project for which there was no loan guarantee and which the government is not participating in directly -- facilitating, but not participating financially -- is coming to fruition. So the provision of government dollars is not always a guarantee that a project is going to come on. In fact, our approach in all of these is to see projects up and running for the minimum amount of taxpayers' dollars. We don't run to the table with a pile of money or major concessions when you can get the project without the concessions.
L. Fox: What I enjoy about these estimates is that there are always assumptions by the ministers as to where I'm going. In fact, I never talked about loan guarantees or government financing, because personally I have a lot of problems.... I'm not sure that government money has a role to play in investment. Certainly there may be a role to play in terms of
[ Page 6385 ]
building the necessary infrastructure to accommodate and facilitate economic development, but I have a real problem when it comes to investing government money directly into corporations that, in many cases, may compete with corporations not working on government or loan-guarantee dollars. In fact, they're going out and financing their investments through the financial institutions. So the minister isn't going to upset me when he talks about the fact that we shouldn't be giving loan guarantees, because I happen to concur with that particular train of thought. But I'm wondering what mechanism is in place to evaluate -- when provincial dollars are involved, whether it is grants or loan guarantees -- whether it is in the best interests of the industry as a whole, the competing industries within the province, for the government to be involved in a new initiative that puts that new company at a competitive advantage because of the lower cost of money through government investment?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You're asking, as I understand it, what mechanism is available to evaluate projects. Clearly, there is the general cost-benefit: do the costs of the project show net benefits when the project is evaluated? Treasury Board staff analyze it and the investment people analyze it, using a number of criteria associated with how you determine what the costs and benefits of the project are. In some areas we're using social cost accounting, where we try to take into account a broader range of costs -- we have talked about this in and around independent power projects. We are bringing into account a wider range of costs and benefits when we evaluate projects. So there is a regime, and we are currently examining whether or not it's adequate to safeguard the public investments when they are made.
I'd like to make a comment about what you said about loan guarantees. My reference was with respect to whether you're playing politics with the location of facilities, and I'm saying that you can play politics by giving incentives to certain locations. But clearly, when we talk about regional development and the provision of infrastructure, we are in effect providing some kind of a playing field for a company that otherwise wasn't there -- and there's a public cost, nevertheless. So I'm not sure it matters whether you invest in infrastructure or have some kind of financial participation -- it depends on the nature of the financial need of the project. It's not a philosophical matter; it's a business matter. What does a project need to succeed? Does it need money? Does it need loan guarantees? Does it need infrastructure? Does it need a training program? Just what does it need? And I say there's a wide variety, so you have to take these on a project-by-project basis.
L. Fox: I'm a bit disappointed in the minister's answer because I think there's a whole host of reasons why there's a considerable difference between investing in infrastructure throughout the province versus investing directly into a corporation. It's through the investments in infrastructure that we can diversify the economy of all regions of the province; but if we're specifically dealing with investing in corporations and helping them get started, then it becomes more and more difficult to encourage them into regions of the province that don't have the infrastructure to accommodate those kinds of developments. So I think there's a significant difference with respect to that.
My question was, in fact, more pointed than what you accepted. That question was whether, when your ministry is investing in or looking at investing in the private sector through low-interest loans or some other rationale, it looks at how this particular initiative is going to be competing within that sector; and whether or not they are going to be at an advantage over those individuals who do not have that kind of financial support from the province. For instance, is there communication between your ministry and the pulp industry? If there's a pulp mill that wants to locate somewhere in British Columbia but is looking directly for provincial financial help, do you seek the advice of the industry as to whether or not that's a good investment for the industry and therefore for the province, or do you do this through a consultant who basically looks at the stats?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to the question is yes. We do take into account the impact of potential financial arrangements on other players in the sector. There are different reasons why there's a competitive advantage in every particular project. To use the example of the pulp industry, there are a number of consultants in the industry who evaluate market, profitability and so on. To get an independent view we often have to go to an independent source of information. We take advice from a number of sources. In the case of a project before the B.C. Investment Office -- if I can bring it back to that -- the investment advisory council would take a general view of the industry and make suggestions as to whether or not it was advisable for the government to be involved in that. They will know, for example, whether there's a gap in the capital market that puts a certain project at a disadvantage.
D. Jarvis: Earlier the member for Prince George-Omineca brought up the subject of economic development pertaining to the mining industry in this province. I believe I heard you say that you thought it was a write-off. According to Hansard you said that. In any event, I was wondering if you could tell me what your economic development department is doing for mining in British Columbia.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said nothing of the kind -- that mining was a write-off. I said that certain business expenses can be written off. That's what I said.
D. Jarvis: My question to you was whether the economic development department was doing anything for the mining industry in B.C.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ministry responsible is primarily the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry. If there is a value-added product, we get involved in the industrial development as opposed to
[ Page 6386 ]
the mineral development. We will actively look for industries that work closely with the mining industry.
I think I explained in other places that if we took all the taxes and costs off the mining industry, it would make between 3 percent and 5 percent difference on the bottom line. This wouldn't be enough, according to the Mining Association, to start up another mine. The problems are deeper. We are cooperating, where necessary, with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on the development of a mineral strategy. Quite frankly, in that area they don't need a lot of help; they have all the expertise.
We do have a primary industries branch with some people who are knowledgeable about the industry. If there's a particular regional project that needs some assistance in the analysis, we're happy to provide our economists to go in there and evaluate it.
[3:00]
Of course we encourage the mining industry. We would like to see mines develop. There's a serious problem with the value of ore, however, and more lax rules in some other countries. We are not prepared to lower our environmental standards to get mines going here. We think our standards are fair; we think they can live with them. We think that the other countries will raise those standards. If the playing field isn't exactly level right now, it probably soon will be. As to what our ministry is doing, through the Job Protection Commission we have assisted a number of mining ventures. If they are in trouble and need some assistance and restructuring, we can provide some assistance to try to get the parties that deal with that industry to make an economic plan that will allow that industry to survive.
D. Jarvis: You mentioned earlier that you were assisting some businesses in the Elk Valley. What type of businesses are those?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The businesses that were having trouble because of a prolonged labour problem and other shutdowns in the Elk Valley were mostly suppliers. There were industrial suppliers, restaurants, stores and other businesses. I could provide you with a complete list. There was the full variety of types of businesses you'd find in a small town. They were all evaluated as to their long-term viability. We put a retired banker in there to assess the business plans, and when we received recommendations we processed the loan guarantees very quickly.
D. Jarvis: Unfortunately, if the coal industry doesn't pick up in that area, that's just good money thrown after bad.
Would your department be involved in looking into interprovincial tariffs?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we have the lead on interprovincial trade barriers.
D. Jarvis: Could you explain further, Mr. Minister, how involved you are?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we are working with other provinces and the federal government to examine where we can remove real barriers to trade -- not just nuisances and perceived problems, but real problems that we can deal with. On the other hand, we are not prepared to say, carte blanche, that every barrier is to be gone and that we are a completely wide-open economic union, because there are legitimate reasons, province by province, why we want to retain some powers to direct and stimulate development.
D. Jarvis: You mentioned earlier that you were working with Golden Bear. Is there a problem there now that has to be addressed?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are some concerns about that mine. The Tahltan Tribal Council, who are major contractors up there, are concerned about its future. So we're asking the job protection commissioner to have a look and see if there is something that can be done.
D. Jarvis: As far as major projects go, are you prepared to divulge any major foreign investors in the resource industries that are contemplating coming into this province at this time?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member wants to pursue that, we'd be happy to provide a detailed briefing, partly because of the delicacy of some of the information. Yes, we have had about 81 inquiries through the B.C. Investment Office. A number of people are prepared to invest, but in some cases they are brokers and traders, and the direct investment.... It's different in every case. In most cases they look for a private sector partner in the province here, and in a lot of cases we look for that. They then become the financier for a local entrepreneur. We're prepared to have the Investment Office provide a briefing for you on that if you like. The list of major projects that are trying to get up and running in the province is published by the Minister of Finance. But there are some additional projects that remain confidential for the moment, and we're prepared to provide you with a briefing.
D. Jarvis: In your address this morning you mentioned that you were planning some type of a project in the Nechako area. Can you explain what you were aiming at there?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will try to find the exact reference, but the projects we are aware of in the Nechako are Vanderhoof Pulp and Paper, where there was a commitment made by Alcan to an offsetting project.... This has been mentioned again in the Kemano review. As a result, there should be projects in there to mitigate the effects in that region of the depressed water flows that would result.
There has been some suggestion that somewhere in that valley or up in that area there is room for a steel mill, but the location of that project has not been set. Until it is set, we're not sure whether there will be provincial government involvement. The Kitwanga mill has been shut down for some time, and we are working
[ Page 6387 ]
with the aboriginal people in an attempt to find a way to either restart that mill, if it's viable, or find alternative employment for people in the area.
D. Jarvis: Along with some of these projects that you were talking about going out and giving assistance to, are there any through your department that are giving out loan guarantees?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: At the present time we're not in the loan guarantee business in terms of saying: "Here is a loan guarantee program -- come and apply." We are always prepared to consider assistance if it's vital to a strategic industry in the province or in a strategic location, but we are very cautious about putting money on the table in advance to attract speculative investment. If there is any bargaining, we do that quietly and with a hard position that we are trying to minimize any expenditure of public funds on projects. As you know, any bad-debt provision that we have to provide goes right on the bottom line of the deficit. We've brought that discipline into the financing.
But there is a loan guarantee program through the Job Protection Commission. When the previous government ended the loan guarantees they did provide for the Job Protection Commission to continue, because we were in the recession. One might argue we're still in the recession. Even if we're not and are climbing out, there will be ongoing structural change in the economy. When we discussed the Job Protection Act changes, we argued that there was a need for an economic mediator, facilitator and financier at arm's length to the government to look at restructuring. So there is a loan guarantee program that exists for the Job Protection Commission.
D. Jarvis: I have one last question. Are there any economic development projects planned by you by using your share of the Build B.C. plan?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish! But I don't have a share of the Build B.C. program. Build B.C. has a number of components, as you know. Where it refers to infrastructure, we expect that where there is a necessity to finance infrastructure as a capital investment, these tend to be large regional projects in all likelihood, although we could do smaller ones. The easy answer is that we don't have any control over those at this point. In the future there may be programs administered by my department that are under that particular rubric, but not at the present time.
F. Gingell: You mentioned that you had sent a retired bank manager up to the Elk Valley. I was wondering if any loan guarantees were given at that time and how much they amount to.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I think the number.... I'd have to check to say exactly, because these are in process. We issued a press release on the first 11. I think that another six have been approved since then. They're all $50,000 or under, some of them as small as $12,000. I have a total of 11 here. There are a number of contracting; a number of holdings, like building supplies, for example, or ready-mix; a rewind company; a photography business; and a dry-cleaning business -- those are the types of things. I'd be happy to provide you with the information; it's all there. They total $415,000 on this list and there would probably be another $200,000, but we won't know the exact amount until they're drawn down. There are now 22 as of April 30; we have funded 22 in the Elk Valley.
That was a specific program that we designed with bank guarantees so we could move in quickly and process them very quickly, but the banks were not prepared to back them up. It's for operating capital, but only for those projects that looked like they had a viable future, given what we knew about the mines that were starting up again and the levels they were starting up at.
F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, do you have at hand the information for the total of other guarantees which your ministry has presently made -- a rough breakdown?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. Under the industrial incentive fund there were 12 approvals worth $12.630 million and under the small business incentive program there were $2.363 million, for a total loan assistance of $14.993 million -- those were loans. Under guarantees we had a total of.... I gave you the $415,000 figure for the Elk Valley small business initiative. Also under the guarantees was $5,958,250 for other guarantees. They would include Cassiar Mining Corp., Mather's Restaurants Enterprises, Country Feed and Pet Supply, Lytton Lumber, etc. I can give you the whole list.
F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, can you advise us if, during the past 12 months, the government has had to pay out on any guarantees that it has previously made?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If your question was whether anybody has defaulted and therefore whether we have had to pay out, the answer is no.... I'm just going to double-check that for you.
[3:15]
Interjection.
F. Gingell: I presume that "no" would apply for both the year that has just started -- the couple of months that have gone by -- and the year just ended.
Mr. Minister, this isn't so much a question as a response to a remark that you made to my friend the critic for Mining. Recognizing the importance of your role in representing economic development, I would put it to you that the reason we have a lack of mining exploration and development in this province is not to do with the value of ore or with our environmental laws; rather, it's to do with the length of time that it takes for applications to get dealt with. It is to do with the lack of certainty that mining companies have that once they start on the process, they will be allowed, should they meet all the requirements and all the standards that are set, to move forward and develop their property.
[ Page 6388 ]
Also, Mr. Minister, I would suggest to you that proposed legislation such as the natural resources expropriation act and the subsequent Schwindt report on the way compensation would -- or, in most cases, would not -- be paid are really greater concerns to economic development. I know that within any government's program and policies there are all these pulling matters. But I really would like to put forward my view to the Minister of Economic Development that it is these three issues: the time that it takes to get applications through; the uncertainty on whether or not they will be allowed to proceed once they have met all the conditions; and the fear of expropriation without fair compensation.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If there is an uncertain environment, we inherited it in part and we are working on trying to streamline the environmental approval process. Since we've been in we've issued two mine development permits. That doesn't necessarily mean the mines proceed, because they have other problems, which in some cases are financing issues.
With respect to expropriation, any government needs clear guidelines which will give certainty to the people who are entering into some kind of development process. Some of the ideas that were suggested in the Schwindt report were common to other jurisdictions, so we were in fact behind the times -- there was no clear guidance there. We do have legitimate competing interests for our land use, and if we are going to designate some land uses that exclude mining, then there has to be a basis for the compensation.
There's going to be a period of time when the uncertainty is not resolved. But I think you have to admit that by introducing such a process as the CORE process, we are trying to establish the zones in which people can operate with certainty. I think we are moving very rapidly towards introducing certainty. I think the length of time has been a problem, because there's been the federal process and our process. We're hoping that there will be legislation that we can pass that will show that there's a streamlined process where we can evaluate the environmental impacts and the economic impacts at the same time, and produce that certainty.
But a lot of the process on difficult projects necessarily takes a long time. It takes years and years. But that's usually because there's an uncertainty before we begin. The mining industry knows that. So I say that we have a province here with a wonderful landscape and a wonderful variety of economic opportunities, and we have to balance those carefully. By putting the mining industry at the table where we've had local land use planning processes, we've found that they have come out with more certainty and they've had their interests represented.
As far as my role in economic development is concerned, of course I take the position that we ought to be driving development, and that where there is a regulator that appears to be leaning one way or the other, we say to them: "Lighten up." This tension is within any government or any process.
I think what's happening right now in the mining industry is that we need some more certainty in the world economic picture as well. Otherwise those investments aren't there. So I can't accept that it's the quality of the ore. I think it's very real that there are other jurisdictions that are prepared to reduce revenues and have an easier regulatory regime. It's some of all of those, but we're acting to create that stability, and I think we're on the road to doing that. We haven't solved all the problems, but we're on the way there.
The Chair: The Chair was having some discomfort at how close we were getting to issues that should properly be canvassed under the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. However, with that caution, I recognize the member for Langley.
L. Stephens: I just want to follow up a little on the regulatory aspect of it, and I want to get back to the B.C. Investment Office again. One of the press releases says: "The B.C. Investment Office has no independent funding or regulatory responsibilities and works within existing programs in the provincial, federal and local governments." We talked about this briefly. What does this office do that can't be done by your ministry, particularly the industry and investment portions of the ministry, or B.C. Trade for that matter? I know that B.C. Trade has undergone some reorganization, and they are focused on some different directions in attracting investment as well. What I've heard so far hasn't really convinced me that there is a need for this other office. It goes on to say: "One of the services is access to the decision-making apparatus of government." Is this to assist industries coming in to deal with a bureaucratic maze of regulations, permits and that kind of thing? If so, it seems to be a stand-alone organization; it doesn't seem to warrant that. Perhaps the minister could let us know what real need there is for this particular organization.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To start with, I would go back to the Premier's summit, where knowledgable investors and people who operate here all the time in the business community identified that there should be one office that particularly foreign investors can come to, which has a connection with everything else. Now, you can say that any government organization has a connection with everybody else. On a selective basis, this unit works on projects that look like they have a high probability of success, for which there are real impediments and the normal processes are not going to work effectively. When we say normal processes, you can't fast-track everything through every department; you would have chaos, and everything would slow down. It's a way of separating out particular projects for which a particular problem has been identified, and some kind of facilitation can be done within government for those projects.
To answer your question about B.C. Trade, it still works at export promotion. You could give them the investment function, but they're not set up to do that; they're set up to be export promoters. The B.C. Investment Office is there to facilitate investment, along
[ Page 6389 ]
with the rest of the ministries. So if in the normal course of promoting exports B.C. Trade happens to find an investor, then they can bring them to the Investment Office. If it's a routine matter, they can take it to the industry and investment branch of the ministry.
In many cases the B.C. Investment Office, because it's called that, is marketed as the door into B.C. for foreign investors. They don't have to worry about where they go to in B.C. Trade or in the government; they go to the Investment Office. That's the point of steering people to the appropriate place.
They do work within existing rules and guidelines. They're not there to crash down or bypass regulations that are there for legitimate reasons. We have reasons to protect the environment, consumers and so on. They will work through them but try to facilitate it. If they identify a place where the policies or regulations are up against one another and are really a filter against the project, then they'll try to open it up or get the problem resolved in some other way.
L. Stephens: I have no further questions on the B.C. Investment Office. However, the Social Credit caucus may have.
We'll continue on with the policy and planning division. I see that this division prepares provincial economic development policy options, design, negotiation and evaluation of federal-provincial, joint government-industry and economic initiatives. I believe there is a joint federal-provincial conference on interprovincial trade barriers in May or June this summer. I wonder if interprovincial trade barriers are on the agenda; I'm sure they are. But I'd also like to ask what the minister will be talking about in that conference. I'd like to know if he'll be asking about a specific timetable for removal of these interprovincial trade barriers on a reciprocal basis.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The time frame for the removal of barriers or the negotiation of an agreement on the removal of barriers -- as many as possible -- is the end of June, 1994. It's a fast track. I'm hosting here in British Columbia the meeting in the second week of June, at which we'll be trying to deal with a timetable and an agenda for those items. There are some 14 items that have been identified as potential barriers. The problem here is that there have been estimates made on a notional basis without any thorough research about the cost. Somebody set the cost as high as $6 billion; whereas, in reality, we think it could be as low as $575 million.
The barriers to internal trade are more or less serious, depending on what your perception is there. But the barriers that exist are often there to protect. For example, regulations on our highways are there to protect the winding highways through the mountains -- protection which you don't need under regulation on prairie roads. So is that a barrier to trade? Well, it might be if trucks from the prairies can run on different roads and under different regulations. But it's there to protect the people of B.C. We wouldn't want to give that up. But if it was an unnecessary rule or regulation, then we might find ways to knock those barriers down.
L. Stephens: One of the areas that I would like to see talked about is professional licensing and the recognition of common standards for bodies in the different provinces and territories that would enter into reciprocal agreements.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We haven't finalized our position on exactly which ones and what standards, but that's on the agenda and presumably we will work on those. The whole idea of having a comprehensive list on the agenda is that there are going to be some trade-offs. Some provinces are going to want to protect their professional people and may not want to give as much as somebody might on freight regulation. So the idea is to try to remove as many barriers and make it as much of a win-win situation for all provinces as possible.
L. Stephens: Would the minister be able to give me a sense of how he feels this should proceed? What are your views on interprovincial trade barriers, and what would you like to see changed?
[3:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are some broad principles that we have set forth which I can reiterate for you. If there's any harmonizing of standards, we are interested in harmonizing upwards; in other words, we raise the standards to a common standard so that we don't drag them down. That principle of levelling up is accepted by the federal government and most of the provinces. We are also concerned that there will be a principle embodied in there that what we do for one province, it will reciprocate -- treat us the same way, in other words. That's what we did with respect to beer and wine; we tried to make sure that we were treated in the same way. The basic problem is that if there are some barriers there, trade may be easier with another country, like the United States, than it is with other provinces. Of course, we want to make sure that we remove those. We take the approach that there are some limits with respect to environmental standards and labour standards. We don't want those to be negotiated downwards. We've taken a similar approach with respect to international treaties.
M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure for me to introduce 55 students and their teacher, Ms. White, from Cedar Drive Elementary in Port Coquitlam. I've just spent 20 minutes answering questions. One of the questions they asked me was whether it ever gets boring in here. I said that's why we heckle. I'd like the House to really make them welcome.
L. Stephens: On the same subject of interprovincial trade, I'm sure the environment will be a consideration in the discussions, and labour as well. Are there areas that you feel are most important? Do you have a priority list in which you want to talk about
[ Page 6390 ]
things that take preference over some others? Are there important areas that you want to address first?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In addition to the two that I mentioned, labour standards and environmental standards, there are two more that are particularly important to us. One is worker adjustment. Where there is dislocation from changes due to either international or interprovincial trade law changes, there must be some adjustment. It's absolutely essential. In most cases people aren't afraid of the changes; they just want to be able to deal with them. What we found under the free trade agreement was that there was a promise of specific sector-by-sector adjustments. We've been arguing for that.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
We have also looked at the processing of raw materials. To say that we wouldn't require the processing of raw materials in the province would mean we're open for log exports out of the province. That creates the same problems we have if there are log exports out of this country. We would like to retain the ability to control the processing of materials within and around the regions of the province of B.C.
L. Stephens: I would like to follow up a little bit on worker adjustment. That was something that was discussed in the NAFTA -- there needed to be some provisions made for this consideration. I wonder if the minister would be looking for some kind of joint program with the federal government for training or retraining and worker adjustment, on a cost-shared basis -- with both levels of government, or perhaps three levels of government, industry and academia.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have said that that's one of the preconditions. That is a high priority we need to come out of the negotiations. We are very wary because the federal government has, as you know, refused to do that in the case of the NAFTA as well. They're arguing that the most generic programs are suitable. We're saying that there should be targeted ones where you know there's going to be a particular program. We would pursue joint programs that are industry- and-government-driven. Both levels of government should be there. I'm not sure of the role for municipal government. I'm interested in that idea. I think there's a community interest, and community people are generally involved if there's an adjustment committee. In principle we are supportive of targeted adjustment programs.
L. Stephens: Sector by sector -- okay.
On the processing of raw materials, during the constitutional debate there was consideration for the federal government to pass on to the provincial level more control over the natural resources in the provinces. Is there a conference to discuss more control over natural resources coming back to the provinces, or is this something that's going to be discussed under raw materials in upcoming provincial-federal conferences?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not aware of anything in May that's dealing with the processing of raw materials. You're right that the agreements under the constitutional accord have gone by the way, although they're still there as a reference. The meeting of Canadian ministers of internal trade in June is responding to the agenda that was set by the first ministers, which had an agreement that they took into the constitutional accord. I think there's a high degree of interest by all provinces in maintaining the power to control raw materials. That's one area where they feel they can ensure regional development, because the materials come from the regions of any given province.
L. Stephens: When you talk about the processing of raw materials, I just want to be clear that we're talking about the same thing. I mentioned that there was a move on the federal part to move more control of natural resources -- forestry, mining and so on -- to the provinces. Is that a separate topic of discussion at another date, or is it part of the discussions that are coming up in June?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When we talk as internal trade ministers we are dealing with regulations and so on that interfere with trade. If there's a constitutional barrier, then of course it's a little more difficult, because it can only be dealt with through the constitutional process. What you're speaking about is the returning of power or the vacating of the natural resource field by the federal government. It really does leave us scope. But we haven't seen any indication that they're prepared to abandon the field, although from time to time they talk about it. Were they to do that, it would give us more constitutional control; and that wouldn't be on the table, although as ministers of internal trade we could identify it as a problem. But the two are separate. You might see the internal trade barriers as a subset of the constitutional strictures in the country.
L. Stephens: I understand that they are separate, in that they're separate sets of negotiations with a different focus. They're about the same thing -- raw materials and natural resources -- but two different entities. I just wanted to know whether or not the federal government had made overtures to the provincial level to begin that devolution. I did see some discussion that they were moving in that direction and wondered if perhaps they had already begun that process. Are any other proposed or new federal or provincial joint arrangements being developed through the ministry?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Are you still talking about internal trade, or are you talking about joint provincial agreements? Okay, just a minute.
We're not aware of any. There are, of course, problems associated with the federal government vacating the field in the future, as they have served notice they will, with respect to some of the economic development agreements -- in particular, the forest resource development agreement. We are concerned that there's a vacuum there, but at this point in time and
[ Page 6391 ]
until the federal election is over, there are not likely to be any serious federal-provincial negotiations.
We are continuing to look for opportunities, but usually the federal government has to be prepared to announce a new program and to be asking us to take part in it. There weren't any new ones in the last budget.
L. Stephens: Just back one quick question to the meeting that's coming up in June. Will NAFTA and some of the international trade agreements be discussed at that time or simply the interprovincial?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The North American free trade agreement will not be on the agenda. This is internal trade. There is another trade ministers' forum that discusses NAFTA. They're not always the same ministers, so this one won't have it on the agenda.
L. Stephens: I'd like to ask a few questions about the major project review process and what projects were brought forward this past year.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The two programs that have been under the process since I've been minister are the Orenda pulp and paper mill and the Celgar Pulp mill. The first one, Orenda, has received approval in principle, and the Celgar one has its approvals in place and is under construction. There are a total of eight in the last year that have entered the process. If you like, I can get the list for you, but we don't have it with us today.
L. Stephens: So they're in the process. There have been no decisions made on any of these that have come forward?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On the ones that are in process, no; but we do have approvals on Orenda and Celgar. Then there are the mines, which are in the different process that I spoke of. Two were approved there, and I believe six are in the process. But that's a different one, which is co-managed by the Ministers of Mines and Environment. We're involved in the industrial projects.
L. Stephens: Environment and economy -- was that the study that impacts on this major review process? What are some of the criteria for determining what does or does not receive approval?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Among the criteria for the major project review are environmental impact issues. But if you're referring to a paper on the environment and the economy, I suspect that is the round table's paper. Is that correct? I wasn't sure what your specific question was about that paper.
L. Stephens: What effect does the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy have on this major project review process and the criteria for approving or disallowing initiatives that are put forward?
[3:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're still in the process of examining those papers to see if there are policy implications. They were charged with looking far into the future to ensure that there are criteria for assessing whether projects can be sustainable without environmental damage. The short answer to your question is that the contents of that paper don't directly bear on the environmental review process. The criteria used to assess projects were in existence and are in existence, and that particular paper doesn't have any direct relationship to it. But if it raises a policy issue, or some kind of impact question, then we might have to look at it. But for now, my view is that it's a paper out there looking to the future. Some of their ideas are pretty far-reaching, and I think they're out there for discussion.
L. Stephens: Are there socioeconomic impact studies done, analyses done, for this process?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. I was just checking. On occasion we do special socioeconomic impact reviews, but as a rule, socioeconomic impact as well as environmental impact are done under the major project review. Every one -- more or less -- has a socio-economic impact. It's always a question of degree. If in the process you identify a particular problem that needs more work, you'll often get an approval subject to another process or another study, as was the case in the Celgar approval. They wanted a chip transportation study, because there were some costs that the company wasn't prepared to pick up and it transferred some costs and some dangers to communities where the trucking routes maybe weren't up to standard.
But as a rule, we try within the limits of the finances to ensure that a socioeconomic impact study is done. Where we require an inordinate amount of impact assessment to be done, we might participate in that, as we did in the case of the Orenda mill. There were some particular problems in an area with unresolved land claims, and we wanted to make sure that the project was acceptable and wasn't going to be stopped by some legal process. We wanted to be sure the impact was done very carefully, but that was over and above the normal requirements.
L. Stephens: What other areas does the ministry conduct policy and planning in? Do you do analysis of projects for other ministries? And if so, what have some of those been?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We work with all the sectors, depending a bit on whether or not they have the capacity, the history or the ability to deal with it. We work with Mines. We work very closely with Forests; we have a long history involving industrial policy in that sector. We work with Agriculture. We work with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. We try to work very carefully with the Social Services ministry, and where we can, when it's appropriate, with the Health ministry, just to make sure that the different efforts are being channelled correctly. In a lot of cases we find that there are equity considerations. In other words, we'd like to
[ Page 6392 ]
see disadvantaged people employed. If we can add a training program and employ people from the local area, then we will encourage that to be done. But we work very cooperatively with all the ministries.
With respect to actual project review, we very often -- if a project comes through the door somewhere and somebody brings it to our attention -- we will have somebody look at it and do a very quick assessment of some of the impacts. If it's large, it'll have to go into a large process. But as a rule, we deal with a lot of little projects and a few big ones.
The other policy supports that we provide are on the procurement side, on government purchasing. We work there with Government Services and Crown corporations. We provide policy support on water policy, because there's an export dimension to that, a trade policy dimension. I mentioned the environmental assessment legislation; we're working actively on that. We also work on labour market development policy and we work on the Employment Standards Act. Being the Small Business ministry and the Economic Development ministry, we always try to look at the wealth creation aspect of projects and programs and the impact they might have on competitiveness.
So we are there providing the information from that particular point of view. While we don't call ourselves an advocate -- and the member understands that ministries don't get out there.... It's a longstanding argument, but we're there to ensure fairness, to ensure that all sides are provided for in the debate. As a result, we do in effect advocate for some of the constituent groups. But any member of cabinet has to look at the bigger picture. We are there to do the business analysis and to talk about the impact of these projects on the economy. In most cases there are positive impacts; in some cases there are negative impacts. We document the findings of our analysis and make them available to decision-makers.
L. Stephens: I'd like to ask a couple of questions in that area. The Social Services ministry: what kinds of analyses would the ministry make in that regard? Are these training programs or employment programs to assist ministry clients? What kind of services would the ministry provide the Social Services ministry?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll give you an example of something that happens. If you establish a mining operation or a large pulp mill and you come into a small community, there may be a real hit in the amount of money that's flowing, and you've got opportunities for social problems to happen. So there's often a need for a backup. We will inform the Ministry of Social Services that if this project goes ahead there are likely to be X numbers of people -- workers in the area from outside -- and they'll be looking for housing and different things. Occasionally there are some serious, negative problems as well as the obviously positive aspects to the development, and we would be involved in helping to assess a specific community impact. This is something you can do very little of or you can do in incredible depth.
We also see, in working with the Social Services ministry, for example, whether there's a need for business training for welfare recipients. This is not an area in which we say: "Here is a program." Some programs exist. Because of our general interest in community economic development and in trying to keep as many people employable as possible, we work wherever we have an opportunity. But because we are the business ministry looking at entrepreneurship skills and training for business, we will take some of our packages of services and make them available in partnership with other programs that are taking place within that ministry. Usually it's under the direction of a community umbrella, where we work together with the ministry. It's not something that government has done a lot of, but should do more of and will do more of. It's particularly important where there's serious community adjustment going on, so that people can have the hope that, if they've lost their job, they can cope with the future by getting new skills, and so on. So we work in a variety of ways. I think some of the community development projects that we have underway are experimental. We're working in Merritt and in roughly 30 other communities where we've got one type of project or another. I would say Social Services is involved in probably a third of them; that would be my guess.
L. Stephens: It was interesting you should mention Merritt, because I think the unemployment rate there is something around 30 percent -- it's quite high. You mentioned the employment standards as well, in relation to small business. Will you be doing critical analysis of the impact of the changes to the Employment Standards Act? What kind of service or analysis would you provide in that regard?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let's put it this way: we engage in creative dialogue with other ministries about the impact of some of the proposals that come forth. We ensure, for example, that there is adequate representation on the panels. In this case, in the panel that's reviewing that, small business is well represented and will represent themselves. We have maintained an open-door policy. I've had discussions in months gone by with Kathy Sanderson, who's involved, saying that we want to hear their input, because I am pipelining to cabinet on behalf of small business; and that I'm there to raise those issues and make sure they're dealt with in a fair manner. We will look at all aspects and try to advise government generally on the impact before they do it.
L. Fox: I thank the Liberal critic for allowing me to stand in here. I'm sure she and the minister both understand, from my opening discussion this morning, that this issue is very dear to my heart: who is representing small business in cabinet? It almost seems that maybe the minister looked at my criticisms this morning and is making some promises that in the future he is going to be an advocate in cabinet for small business. The minister talked earlier about the fact that he didn't believe he should play an advocacy role, that it isn't one of his responsibilities as the minister
[ Page 6393 ]
responsible for small business. Could the minister expand on why he believes that he doesn't have an advocacy role to play, given that he's the minister responsible for small business in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it's very difficult to explain the delicacy that there is around whether you're an advocate for somebody. Then you raise the question of who you're advocating for -- which particular part of the industry. There's no question that we make sure the views of the industry are made known. We bring the knowledge of that industry to the table. If you were to ask whether the Minister of Forests is the advocate for the forest industry, yes, in general terms he is. But is he the advocate for the multinationals, the independent contractors or the forests? It's a matter of degree there. Often we're a mixture of regulator and advocate. It's not a clear-cut role.
If the member is suggesting that I don't represent the interests of small business and make their points known, I can just point to the fact that we have a very thorough review process of fees and licences, and we're looking at the cumulative impact. Our ministry played a major role in getting that review process established and in developing the methodology. Interestingly enough, the methodology wasn't there to assess impacts. We're developing that capacity and assisting other ministries in looking at the businesses that their ministries have an effect on. Small businesses cover a whole range of sectors and ministries. There's no question but that we're there, and where there's a small business viewpoint, that viewpoint is made known. I think we would be splitting hairs to say whether that's an advocacy role or not.
L. Fox: The minister says it's splitting hairs, but when we look at the negative impact that two successive budgets have had on small business, I would suggest that if the minister perceives that he is playing the role of representing small business, then he hasn't done his job. With all due respect, half of the full-time employees in this province are in companies that have 20 or fewer employees. That's a tremendous amount of income for the province. It should give this minister tremendous clout at the cabinet table. He should be able to represent the interests of those half-million employees. My concern is that to this point he has not. He says that from time to time he plays an advocacy role. I don't know whether that's good enough. I don't think he comforts small business very much when he speaks like that.
[4:00]
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Just a few moments ago the minister, in answer to a question from the Liberal critic about how they involve themselves with the Ministry of Social Services, and suggesting that they enter into a dialogue as to how to make entrepreneurs out of individuals on welfare.... There again this minister has obviously failed, because we've seen an increase in social services and welfare. There were 55,000 more British Columbians on welfare in 1992 than there were in 1991. So there are some major areas where this minister has failed to deliver in terms of programs, whether it's to create opportunities or to represent small business at the cabinet table.
I'll allow the minister to respond.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member is putting qualifications on some of the things that I've said. The last budget put in the exemptions from the corporation capital tax for 2,000 businesses and reduced it for another 1,500. That's something for small business. We are also implementing the recommendations of the joint business-government committee established to review the corporation capital tax. There are some benefits there. In response to the tourism industry, we are reducing certain health inspection fees. Small business is helped there. We are also eliminating the notice-of-work fee and exempting mining access roads on Crown lands from property taxation. In response to suggestions from the business community, we are exempting international air freighters from the jet fuel tax. So there are a number of initiatives that we have taken.
Our position is that taxation generally be considered fair and that everybody share the burden. Unfortunately, if we are to get the deficit under control, we're going to have to raise some revenues, and they should be fair.
I don't think that there has been a general case that small business is unhealthy in British Columbia. In fact, we have provided more jobs. More jobs have been created in this province than in any other province. So how can the member say it's a negative situation? There are fewer bankruptcies and more business start-ups. So as a rule, small business is healthy and it's going to grow. We remain competitive as far as our taxes are concerned. We checked the total tax burden with Washington and Oregon, and B.C. is in a competitive position to do business. It's more favourable to do business here. We've got any number of small programs that assist people in developing their skills. I articulated how many thousands of people are helped through the skill-enhancing programs that we offer in the regions, and they are well received by small businesses.
If you're saying that some sectors should get everything they want, we can't all have everything we want. We're in tough times. We are trying to get out of it, and we're getting on a road to eliminate the deficit. We're headed in the right direction, and by doing that we will be putting all businesses in a better position.
L. Fox: I'm absolutely amazed at that answer from the minister. They have decreased some fees distributed through the Health ministry on the business sector. That's in this year's budget, but it was this government that put those horrendous fees on that industry in the previous budget. They've increased the ceiling for the corporation capital tax, but up until the first budget of this government we never had a corporation capital tax.
Then we look at the initiative in this particular budget, where we now have tax on labour to repair shoes and tax on labour to repair vehicles. We've got tax, tax, tax, and all of this affecting small business. This
[ Page 6394 ]
particular initiative alone will drive more economy underground this year than any other initiative this government has taken over the last two years.
In my view, this minister is not representing the interests of British Columbians, never mind the interests of small business. If we cannot have a good, solid climate for investment, half of the employees in British Columbia -- most of them in good, solid-paying jobs and obviously in all regions of the province -- are going to be negatively affected. This morning, when I suggested that the minister was irresponsible in his statements with respect to automobile employees, he shouted across the floor of the House: "Well, they're aggressive people; they can find jobs elsewhere." That's the kind of attitude we do not need on the part of this government. Those jobs are valuable, and we should be working hard to protect high-paying jobs in British Columbia if we are going to turn around this economy and develop opportunities for the unemployed to find work. We certainly don't have to send out negative messages, such as that we do not think those particular jobs are important.
I want to ask a question with respect to the minister's earlier statement about how his ministry is working with the Ministry of Social Services to change those particular individuals into entrepreneurs. How much money have you spent on that particular program, and what is the number of individuals you've been able to encourage off welfare into the small business segment of the province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is that we don't have a program or spend money; we help other ministries do policy and program development in that area. I'd be happy to get back with some details of what has been done in that area. As I said, they are existing programs. If you're expecting the Economic Development ministry to turn everybody into an entrepreneur, it isn't going to work. We know that a lot of people will remain employees, and not everybody is going to be self-employed. We have to put some realistic expectations in there.
I have to remind the member that B.C. does remain the fastest-growing area in the country and probably in North America. He has to recognize that, instead of getting on his negative tread and not admitting that B.C. is competitive. In order to get the truth out, we published the small business taxes, comparing B.C. and Washington.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You laugh, but the facts are there.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not selective facts; all the facts are there, and it does assess taxes. If you want to talk about facts, the facts are there; we have put them out. In fact, people from Washington admit that it's probably advantageous to set up in B.C., all things considered, all taxes considered. So we check this; we provide information.
During the last estimates the then-leader of the Liberal Party, or the leader of the Liberal Party, made some comments about it, saying that there were selective facts in there and that it wouldn't stand up under any scrutiny. And it was the same thing with our electronic manufacturing, advanced manufacturing and competitive advantage piece. There were some initial corrections suggested by an industry. We went back to them, and it still stands. That's why we verify these by using outside consulting firms.
The fact remains that the business climate for small business is good. We will retain that in British Columbia; it would be foolish to do otherwise. B.C. is going to exceed other provinces and grow, at 35,000 new jobs, all the while having a lot of in-migration to deal with, because we don't have borders in British Columbia. It's still a better place to work, do business and live.
L. Fox: I really am pleased and I guess appreciative that British Columbia is in fact a resource-rich province, that we have some of the highest quality workforce in Canada and that we have extremely attractive climatic conditions that make people move here. Without those three factors, we wouldn't enjoy the growth we are presently enjoying. The policies of this government would have a more negative effect if there weren't so many positives out there, which come naturally to us, to offset the negative aspects of this government's taxing policies.
I really like it every time the minister stands up and suggests that B.C. is in fact the fastest-growing province in Canada and that we're enjoying an investment climate that's beyond any other jurisdiction within Canada. It leads me to ask where we would be compared to the other jurisdictions if we still enjoyed the tax advantages that we enjoyed prior to this government. Let's look at how this government has closed that loophole, that incentive to business. Perhaps the minister would like to tell us what the change has been from 1990 to 1993 in the amount of taxation the province has collected through small business. I understand it's a difficult question, but let's look at how much extra taxation has been extracted from the small business community in B.C. in 1993, over even 1991.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to get that information if it's in a form that we can readily collect for you. I don't have it with me. I'd just remind the member that B.C. has the second-lowest taxes in Canada. That's part of the reason why it's an attractive place to move to and invest in.
Looking at the hour and understanding the agreement, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Streifel in the chair.
[ Page 6395 ]
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
(continued)
A. Warnke: The reason I feel compelled to speak on Bill 20 is that I have some concerns, some of which have been very well expressed by the Opposition House Leader, my colleague for West Vancouver-Capilano. He initially pointed out that there are features of this bill that one can perhaps support. But while there may be the odd item that lends itself to support, there are other aspects that demand some attention. While some items are not contentious, the one item that appears to be contentious is the elimination of the funding of group 3 schools, which is objectionable. I note, hon. Speaker, that others have pointed out a very similar kind of argument. The member for Prince George-Omineca put it very well, in terms of concrete dollars, exactly what the problem is with regard to this particular bill. Hence I feel quite compelled to make a few remarks on this as well.
[4:15]
I think part of the problem operates from the premise that we do not need to be concerned about group 3 funding. The government can extricate itself from funding group 3 schools because this is a move in the direction of not supporting certain kinds of independent schools. I cannot help but think that the premise the government is operating from.... Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe through questioning and cross-examination at the committee stage, we will find the premise that I thought the government was operating from is somewhat different. But I suspect the premise is that the government members are operating from a notion that the private educational system lends itself to the evolution of classes and is one that exalts privilege in our society. If that is the premise, I suggest that they re-examine it. The notion that all that independent or private schools do is contribute to the development of privilege may not be the case.
I say that quite confidently, because in my own riding of Richmond I know a number of people who have made such representations on the kind of independent schools that are going to be refused funding under this particular bill. As a matter of fact, even outside my riding but still within the community of Richmond, I was most impressed with an institution that will be affected by this particular legislation, because this particular college wanted to address a fundamental need that is developing in our society -- that we, somewhere along the line. have to address.
The premise by which funding will be eliminated for group 3 schools bothers me a little bit, because I see another premise that ought to be addressed in our society, and that is the fact that we're not becoming the old archetypal kind of capitalist society where there are two classes -- one based on privilege and one not -- and that's what stimulates a private system. Quite the contrary. What I see is the evolution of a very complex society. When we stop to think about it, we are seeing such a complex society that there are new demands being enforced on our society. New challenges are forced upon our society to which we have to develop appropriate responses.
Let me put it this way. A notion that has been around for some time is that as a society grows and becomes more complex, and indeed we want to promote a society that does grow... That's one thing we do in order to hook properly into the twenty-first century. We acknowledge at the outset that we are living in a global economy. I believe I've heard from members on the government side that we are becoming more of a complex society. So that's the premise from which we begin, and it is an acceptance of a complex society. That may mean that the normal way to proceed in establishing institutions of higher learning may be altogether different than in the past. That means that the premises by which we have taken a look at institutions, schooling and the acquisition of knowledge are much different than in the past. It's more complex.
Indeed there is an increased division of labour that is ever-present in a modern industrial and advanced technological society, and the division of labour increases. That means the society becomes more complex, and therefore the responses to that are such that we may have to develop, encourage, foster and promote institutions that respond accordingly. That actually contributes to a vibrant society and economy, which I note is in the preamble of the proposed legislative changes. Based on my perceptions and experiences within my own community of Richmond, I know one institution that will be affected. It is an institution that is responding to the challenges of a very complex society, a vibrant economy and so forth, and I want to promote that. So I have some reservations about the legislation that's before us.
I agree with my colleague, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, that perhaps some items may not be contentious. But I want to reserve my assessment of the bill, considering that the changes affecting independent schools have perhaps not taken into account just how complex the whole question of independent schools has become. It may be crass, but I'll be quite candid. It doesn't mean that I condone the setting up of some wild notion of a school for fanatics. I understand that is a problem that any society must address. We do not want any sort of Waco, Texas scenario up here in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, this province, especially, has had some history with regard to questionable conduct in setting up schools and so forth. So we're especially sensitive to that here in British Columbia, and we know that. But while some examples can come to mind, either realistically or hypothetically, underneath it all we have to acknowledge that we are facing a very complex society to which we have to develop appropriate responses.
[ Page 6396 ]
Incidentally, our province is not the only one to face this. My own experience of a few years ago, when I lived in Ontario around the Toronto area....
An Hon. Member: Shame, shame.
A. Warnke: That is a sin to which I confess. One member seems to believe it is a sin, and I certainly understand why some people might consider anything coming from central Ontario as that. I have come back to my roots, but it doesn't mean I'm going to ignore that experience.
One of the experiences I had of living in that area was that there, too, the public schools faced some very serious, chronic problems in transmitting knowledge to young students and preparing them for the world outside the classroom. Indeed, the problems were extremely severe -- as we might expect in any large city, though Toronto is usually viewed in a North American context as very civilized. Yet there were very severe problems even there -- and what was the result? The result was that some people felt there had to be an alternative to the way we've developed our public schools and public institutions. Maybe it's wrong, but people recognize when there is a problem, and they respond accordingly. I vividly recall people who felt that one way out of this dilemma facing their children and young people was to enrol them in private, independent schools. As a matter of fact, I was even an applicant at one stage to an independent school there, and I was very impressed. I guess I was offered a job teaching law there, but I turned them down. I wanted to come to British Columbia.
It does mean that certain kinds of independent schools are very responsive to a new, changing environment and that parents and people generally recognize the need for certain kinds of independent schools. It's very clear that not all of it is being funded by the provincial government. In B.C. only 10 percent is funded by the provincial government, which means that parents and the community as a whole are responsible for 90 percent of the financing of such schools.
When people are searching for an alternative, to a certain extent it's not a question of seeking privilege or something extra for their kids so that they can join the elite class. If any parent really wants their kids to join the elite, then some of the independent schools would not be the way to go. I would recommend that they attend an exclusive private institution such as Groton in Connecticut or someplace like that so that they can go to Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Oxford and so forth. It's clearly not just a question of a quest for privilege. It's a response to an environment.
Frankly, I think ministries of education across Canada and maybe North America have got to be a little more dynamic and thoroughly assess what kind of problems they face with regard to education. In a strange sort of way, parents and other people are actually taking the lead on this. They're looking for an alternative to the public system. They are also responding to the dynamic evolution of a society that is becoming more complex. Some of the items in this bill are not contentious, but in some ways the bill does not come to grips with the realities of what independent schools are all about or with the nature of education and what we are really facing in this country. I suppose we might interpret this as an attack on independent schools. If it is, it's certainly not warranted, but the implications may be that it is.
Incidentally, specific features of the bill also bother me a little bit. We'll take those up at the committee stage. I sure would like to have some explanations of why certain terms are being used. I'll give one example, I suppose to put the minister on a bit of a notice, because we will be exploring these at the committee stage. In a way, we all know what the term "the goal of a democratic society" means, but I cannot help but draw something from my own professional experience. Some of my political science colleagues were not pleased with the term democratic society. What do you mean by a democratic society? Democratic refers to the form of government. It refers to the political processes. Society refers to something like social structure. By democratic society, are we maybe talking about social relations in the context of the principles of democracy as espoused by the French revolution? If what is meant by the essence of a democratic society is the equality, liberty and fraternity as it affects social relations and how that is to be demonstrated in a social structure, fair enough. But I do want to also suggest that that is a high-minded aspiration that also has plenty of contradictions within it. For example, one does not balance equality and liberty all that easily. As a matter of fact, there is a strong case in political philosophy that there is almost an inverse relationship between equality and liberty. Throw fraternity in there and I'm not sure what we've got.
[4:30]
An Hon. Member: An NDP government.
A. Warnke: Throw it in there, and you might have an NDP government, says one of my colleagues.
We understand the aspirations. We know what certain people from that side of the House, the government side, would like to pursue or aspire to. But the terms are not very clear; the terms are even filled with contradiction. While the preamble may sound very nice, because there is an additional feature in that preamble now that talks about the goal of a democratic society and how we aspire to have people personally fulfilled and publicly useful, when you look at it on closer examination it just doesn't really make any sense. As a matter of fact, that one phrase "publicly useful" is perhaps even a touch repugnant. How can we make individuals publicly useful? One of my colleagues talked about the premise in this bill being one of a collective approach rather than an individual approach. I think that member is quite correct, because if one has true, profound respect for individuals, then yes, the individual is seeking not only just what is in the self-interest. We're not talking about that kind of person as a possessive individualist but an individual who was at the same time a citizen. How do we make that individual publicly useful? There is a premise
[ Page 6397 ]
underlying this too. Who defines what is publicly useful? Unfortunately, hon. Speaker, it is sort of an elite that defines how individuals may be publicly useful. We will see how they become publicly useful. There is a premise there that is just a touch obnoxious and terribly condescending, in my view, and I think we have to watch it. Maybe with a little bit of luck, the addition in the preamble that's being proposed here will be defeated or perhaps withdrawn. We'll see as we approach it at committee stage.
But this exemplifies, I think, some of the problems that we see in this bill. To be quite honest with you, hon. Speaker, little examples like that, and precisely the one that eliminates group 3 funding, make me think that perhaps the implications of this bill have not been well thought out. Perhaps what was really needed in this particular bill was a little bit more time to think through some of the implications of the terms that are being thrown around and so forth.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: One hon. member across says: "Oh, it's negative, negative." Hon. Speaker, with all due respect to that member, I have tried to be very positive by pointing out that there are problems with this particular bill. I've given the reasons why. I don't know why the hon. member has closed her ears, perhaps maybe not thinking that there are reasons that create a few problems here. But I have tried to point out some very solid reasons as to why there are problems with this bill. If I truly wanted to oppose this bill and be negative for the sake of being negative, I'd have an entirely different approach. I think some hon. members on this side know that, and some hon. members on that side know just how negative I can be if I really get warmed up.
An Hon. Member: Oh, the milk-and-cookie approach.
A. Warnke: Yes, the milk-and-cookie approach.
What I'm trying to do is focus in on some particular problems and note how they apply, with implications in concrete examples. I know of one institution in Richmond that will be adversely affected by this. I know that there are applications and that there are people interested in independent schools, people who are very well-minded indeed, who respond to a changing environment and who understand the nature of a complex society. I know that this kind of approach is going to adversely affect our schools. These are the reasons why I'm really slowing down and trying to get the point across to the government that perhaps there is something here that needs re-examination. If I pick out a few phrases and words and a few problems here and there, it's to drive home the point that perhaps there are elements of this bill that have not been well thought out and distilled the way they should be.
I begin with the preamble. The purpose of the debate right now is not to go through the entire bill clause by clause. But believe me, you can do that. I'm just pointing out that even when you start off with the preamble, there is a problem. The preamble proposed in this bill illustrates some confusion. That's where it begins; it ends with the elimination of group 3 funding.
I'm not exactly sure where all members of the House stand on this bill. But I'm putting forth the argument that all members should perhaps go back and re-examine the bill. If they pass it at this stage, fine. But be very aware of the task that will be before us in committee stage when we proceed through this bill clause by clause. It needs a lot of improvement. On that basis, I have some very severe reservations with this bill.
F. Gingell: This bill deals with issues that many may see as dealing with educational choice and religious freedom. Many believe that parents have the inalienable right to determine their children's style and form of education. One can't but have sympathy for parents who are put at a substantial financial disadvantage because the government fails to provide for or financially support schools that meet their philosophical tenets.
I wish to state that the Liberal caucus may not be unified on this bill, and all members of caucus are free to vote according to their choice. My own concerns are that this may be the thin edge of the wedge for schools presently classified under groups 1 and 2. A group 1 school in my own community is in the process of building a very attractive brand-new elementary school that will cost them some $2.4 million. You can appreciate that these schools operate on very tight budgets, and they are concerned that there should be no change in the funding they have been receiving for many years -- now at 50 percent of the per-head cost within their district -- which would place their whole project at financial risk. These are not wealthy parents. These parents are paying substantial school fees, but they are willing to make a very substantial financial sacrifice to enable their children to receive the type of education they desire.
If the Minister of Education gives me the reassurance that I seek during the course of this debate -- that this is not the thin end of the wedge -- I will personally be supporting Bill 20.
V. Anderson: One of the realities I discover in listening to people who have seen a particular show or have read a particular book is whether or not they come out of that picture show or out of the reading of that book with a common understanding of what they have seen or heard. When they come together with a common understanding, then I begin to see that there is a common thread within that particular production or presentation.
One of the realities that I'm discovering from the people who read this particular bill is that at the very least they are coming to different understandings of its purpose and its reality. Because of that, I am uneasy. Perhaps they bring to it different understandings. If so, it seems to me the purpose of legislation is to make clear what the legislation is about. When we come to different understandings, we must go back and
[ Page 6398 ]
re-examine the presentation itself; in this case, the Independent School Amendment Act.
As has been shown, the preamble has been increased to include the words "democratic" and "pluralistic," which in one sense both describe the society in which we live. But within the bill, they do not illustrate the connection between these inserts into the whereases and the purpose of the bill and the bill itself.
When we come to the definitions over the page, from this presentation we're not clear why you would have an independent school. We have a public school system, and we have traditionally had an independent school system, but the reasons for that may have changed. It may mean that there should be more independent schools or the changes over time may have led to the opposite conclusion: that the independent schools should be phased out in consideration of a broader public school facility.
The act itself does not clarify the reason one would move in one direction or another. So it leaves it up to various interpretations as to why there are independent schools in the first place, or, providing that there are independent schools, why they would be taxed out of the public purse in whole or in part and what percentage of funding you would give to one kind of independent school and what percentage you would give to another kind of independent school. There seems to be a lack of rationale by which somebody new and strange to our whole way of education could read this act and understand the process that is being put before us.
[4:45]
I would say that the definition of an independent school is inadequate, particularly in relation to the preamble about the purposes of education in this province.
It goes on to say what an independent school is not, defining it in the negative. I'm sure that besides the four specific designations given of what an independent school is not, one could very easily add a whole host of others. Are we to imply that if it does not fall into those four categories, an independent school can be almost anything else? There is one strange word which we'll have defined more clearly as we move along. An independent school is not one that is designated by an inspector. But the understanding of what designated means fails to be presented within this particular portion of the act. It leaves us again uncertain as to the particular implications of this bill.
One of the other sections which again leads to some concern is the minister's discretion. We find here two sections giving very strong authority solely to the minister not only to indicate the kind of resources that may be available to a school, which is somewhat understandable with the limited resources, but also to indicate the classifications of schools and the conditions that go with those schools. There does not seem to be a clear indication of how those are to be arrived at by the minister, nor is there a way of appeal. As we look at this act and see the powers that are herein contained, we raise the question of appeal. Where is a person to go if they do not agree with what the minister has designated or decided? So we have different classes of classifications, regulations within those classifications, different directions and different decisions that may all be made at the whim of the minister without an opportunity for appeal.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
So, hon. Chair, some definitions are missing. Some values are implied but not stated behind the definitions and distinctions that the minister would make in these classifications. I trust these will be clarified as we proceed further in the committee stage of this bill.
W. Hurd: I rise today to oppose Bill 20, which I think reflects a view of independent schools in the province by this government that is simply not borne out by how they've been performing in B.C.
I think it's ironic that at this time in our province, when 110,000 students are behind picket lines in our public education system and when parents are seriously asking themselves what kind of public education they're paying for, that we should have a bill before this House which allows the minister certain intrusions into the School Act and into public schools in our province. It is out of step, I believe, with what is clearly needed in B.C.
Public schools have their place -- we all know that -- but so do private schools. Quite frankly, I cannot see -- and in reading the Hansard Blues I have not seen -- a rational justification from this government for its decision to bring forth Bill 20 to this Legislative Assembly.
I have not heard a rational explanation from the minister as to why the elimination of funding for group 3 schools has been deemed necessary. The minister will be aware of letters that she has received and letters that the opposition has received from people who are involved with group 3 schools. They are choice learning centres for students in B.C. They challenge gifted students to achieve higher levels of academic performance and excellence than they might be able to acquire in the public school system. In my opinion, it's important for this Legislature and the people of the province to be aware that this bill seeks to reduce education excellence, not to enhance it. When funding for group 3 schools amounts to only 10 percent -- other members of this assembly have alluded to this -- with the parents themselves picking up 90 percent, you would think the Ministry of Education would have made a better effort to assess what was happening and whether it was worthwhile for the province to continue with that 10 percent support.
The Minister of Education needs to be aware of the growing public concern about the kind of instruction, activities and climate for learning in the public school sector. She needs to listen to the concerns of parents. The reason the demand for independent schools is growing is that the people of the province are concerned about the kind of instruction and direction their children are receiving in public school education. In speaking against this bill, I cannot understand why the minister is bringing forth what are in my opinion significant changes to the relationship between the
[ Page 6399 ]
province and independent schools. Clearly these changes are not being demanded by anyone associated with group 3 schools or by any of the people who are currently involved in private schools in B.C.
Given the absence of a compelling demand from people in the province and the relative lack of dissatisfaction with the way private schools are performing, it's troubling that this bill would come before the assembly at this time, particularly given the real structural problems in the public school realm. When was the last time a private school ended up behind a picket line? When was the last time the private schools of this province had the kind of youth violence that seems to be an all-too-routine occurrence in some of the public schools? Why is a portion of this bill dedicated to fixing a school year, when clearly it should be up to the private schools to determine whether they want their children to learn during an extra two weeks in the summertime? This is the kind of approach to academic excellence that private schools foster and that the government seeks, in my view, to eliminate, given the ability of this bill to intrude into the materials and curricula that are provided in private schools.
This represents a philosophy of the government. I believe it is a philosophy that private schools, because they seek to provide a different type of educational experience and a different approach to academic excellence, are therefore to be discouraged when it comes to an approach by the public for public funding. The level of confidence in our public school system in this province, because of the year 2000 program and other types of endeavours that seek to eliminate competition among our students and reduce educational competition to its lowest common denominator, is the reason that parents are taking their children to private schools. It is why the government, in addressing the needs of private school students, has chosen to bring in an act that allows more intrusion into private school curricula and funding.
If we weren't seeing this widespread public concern about the role of the big stakeholders in public education -- the BCTF, B.C. School Trustees' Association, the people who these days seem to put money ahead of any other consideration -- I don't believe we would be seeing these changes coming forward to private school funding in this province. I am opposed to this bill, and I certainly intend to canvass the minister in committee to determine the exact intent of some of the individual changes to the bill. I suspect that during the course of that inquiry we will determine the intent of these changes. It's the philosophy of the government that it would be a better world if the number of private schools were somehow reduced or if they were capped in terms of the education experience they provide in this province. That is the underlying philosophy in this bill, and that's the reason why it's my intention to oppose this legislation.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
C. Serwa: I also rise in second reading on the philosophy and principles of Bill 20, in opposition to the bill. The real value of Bill 20 is that it illustrates to the public a clear difference in philosophy between the government and the Social Credit opposition. It illustrates the true elitists and the populists. Not every independent school wishes to receive public funds. Group 5 schools are required to meet basic facilities' standards but prefer not to apply for funding in order to be free from state intervention. With Bill 20 clearly targeting evangelical schools for a funding cut based on an unproven charge of inadequate academic standards, who can trust the government to respect their independence?
The government says it is just trying to ensure quality education for tax dollars spent. That's fair enough, and it's certainly reasonable. Taxpayers should know if they are getting their money's worth.
The minister should bring in legislation to test all grade 12 graduates, with something like the Canada test of basic skills, and should tell parents the results, school by school. Another good change would be to refer in future to independent education rather than independent schools. We provide for home schooling in British Columbia, and there is a new emphasis on lifelong learning and retraining for an economy which will increasingly reward multiskilled, creative individuals working in small firms.
Let's recognize the world we live in today, hon. Speaker. That would mean changing Bill 20. If we are to succeed in an innovative economy, we are going to need more independent thought, not less. The government is lagging behind the public, trying to surf on cookie-cutter education without noticing that the tide has gone out on. Brand X government education simply won't suffice in a province as diverse as ours.
Diversity has many sides. For example, Protestants used to send their children to Catholic schools because they were more comfortable with a religious setting in terms of values and discipline.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: I hear the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton mumbling across the hall. I am sure he will be very interested in joining the debate. Should he wish to partake of the opportunity, it will in fact be available, and I will listen quietly and enjoy his discourse on Bill 20.
When we introduced aid to independent schools, we were addressing the growing diversity of values in our province. We see the role of government as serving the parents and students, not shaping them in some image dictated by a particular ideology. Our Social Credit caucus believes that parents have the right to schools which teach their values to their children, so long as it does not involve teaching intolerance or disrespect of others.
[5:00]
A generation ago there was much less diversity in our province, and it was a more manageable task to agree on values. That was before multiculturalism, the sexual revolution, the drug wars and the debates on abortion and capital punishment -- not to mention the debates on affirmative action and sexual preference; on what pornography, hate literature and free speech are;
[ Page 6400 ]
on the ethics of genetic research; on what a social norm is; and what a political statement is. Our public school system does its very best to cope, but we're asking an impossible job of educators and leaving them gun-shy of controversy. This limits their ability to do a good job and leaves the real danger that excellent programs may be left on the shelf out of fear of offending some taxpayers.
The ministry recently told a seminar on developing curricular materials to stay away from techniques which involve visualization or which use time travel as an imaginative device to interest students, because some religious groups consider them to be evil. That shows the hidden costs of trying to design a single curriculum for everybody. Valuable resources may be denied to the majority because of the need to be sensitive to all of the minorities we are trying to embrace. If you look at census figures on religion, it is truly mind-boggling. In addition to having a very high percentage of residents claiming no religion, we have a seemingly inexhaustible listing of religious groups represented in the province, both Christian and non-Christian. Even after all of that, there is a category for others, which includes several thousand individuals.
My plea to the minister is: don't straightjacket either the public or the independent school system by making it harder for the true religious dissidents to provide education to their own children in their own way. It will be worse for everyone. If you do, either you must run roughshod over the beliefs of these minorities or deny public school students good but controversial material. Don't limit our public schools by forcing them to walk on eggshells. I don't think this factor has been considered before.
There was a truly great anomaly between this government's ethnic tolerance and its apparent religious tolerance. The issue is not going to go away. We are moving towards greater diversity, not less. In general, evangelical churches are expanding, while many established churches are not. In Victoria, at least three bookstores cater to so-called new-age customers, and their beliefs are incredibly diverse: Shamanism, Sufism, Zen Buddhism and goddess worship are among some of the subjects that are contained.
No matter how different, it is our obligation to serve all of the people, all of whom pay taxes which go to educate children in our society. To attempt to accommodate all of these belief systems under a single curriculum is unrealistic. Conversely, to seek to impose a single curriculum on all is unfair and impractical. Our province is rapidly becoming not a melting pot but more of a Creole gumbo in which no one ingredient can be identified as a majority.
I have spoken in favour of educational choice in the past. Today it is more urgent than ever. You will not get there by turning the clock back to a bygone era. White males who go to mainstream churches are not the majority, but neither are agnostic socialist feminists. We are a majority of minorities. Some of us are a lot more of a minority than others. Within reason, let us do our own thing in our own way. The sixties weren't all bad. The emphasis on individual choice was good. It simply needed to be placed in a context of more responsibility.
Our caucus is quite willing to support any measure which will give parents, students and taxpayers more accountability for results coming from our schools. We're not willing to assume group 3 schools have inadequate standards, even as a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But that is precisely what we're doing with this bill. It is violating a basic principle of natural justice. Once again, as in the Labour Relations Code, it is setting a double standard against people it dislikes.
What concerns me even more is that it may be testing the waters for future attacks on diversity in our educational system. I sincerely hope that I am mistaken in my concern, but I do recall the phrase: ask not "for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." After the most recent Labour Relations Board appointment, I began to wonder. Has the government realized it can't possibly win another election and so it secretly decided to do everything it can to benefit its supporters in the time left? Did the marching orders on Bill 20 come from Ray Worley at the BCTF? Is it perhaps a sop in case the government feels it can no longer resist public indignation against the economic hostage-taking in our public schools? Isn't it just one step of a payoff to help quieten the BCTF?
Perhaps I am being a bit paranoid, but we have all heard the expression: "Even paranoids have enemies." I hope the government will not see the movement for educational choice as the enemy. In so doing, it would not only be doing wrong and a grave injustice but it would be putting itself on the wrong side of history. We have all heard how a very dogmatic form of trade union mentality brought the once-proud economy of Great Britain down. I very much fear that that's the harm a dogmatic form of trade union mentality is doing to the education system in this province as we speak.
H.G. Wells once said: "To grow and still to grow, that is the law of life." If I may paraphrase that: "To choose and still to choose, that is the law of progress." The member for Abbotsford pointed out yesterday how intolerant this legislation is in its treatment of group 3 schools. I share his concern and would add that it is clearly unnecessary to achieve the ends which the minister indicated are sought to be achieved through this legislation. We know that group 3 style schools of Saskatchewan are complying with standard testing, and this is a very important principle. In today's world, what you know should matter; where and how you learned it should not.
The independence of thought should include the right to acquire skills and to use them in the marketplace. The independent schools are able to certify teachers, such as an English PhD, who could not be certified in the public system without a year of teacher training.
In reflecting on this bill, I hope the minister will get with the times and recognize the need to measure and report to parents and other taxpayers on standards of knowledge, while encouraging choice and independent thinking in a context of lifelong learning and a society which grows and benefits from a uniquely rich social diversity.
[ Page 6401 ]
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in second reading of Bill 20. I think this bill can be seen to be the beginning of the assault by the BCTF and the NDP against the funding of independent schools in this province. Last year the province spent just under $100 million on independent schools. Considering that this would represent at the very least $200 million if all of these students were in the public school system, one can easily identify the independent school system as beneficial to this province.
In my constituency of Langley we have a number of independent schools, and we also have home schooling in Langley, which works out well and is a choice that parents make to provide schooling for their children. We are fortunate in Langley to have the ability to choose public schools, independent schools or home schooling. We have a number of initiatives that the community supports and indeed encourages. My commitment to the funding of independent schools is that it be maintained and that the choice of parents remain.
The group 1 and 2 students, students whose curriculum is fully certified by the Ministry of Education, comprise the vast majority of the independent schoolchildren in the province. This void is filled by the group 3 independent schools, which account for just under 1,500 students in the province. If there weren't a need for these schools, obviously they wouldn't exist. The parents of these students still pay taxes, even though the children do not attend the public schools. The question one must ask is whether or not these schools, whose curriculums are not approved by the Ministry of Education and who are not permitted to issue certificates of graduation by the province.... This question of funding must be debated on the lines of pragmatism, not ideology.
In many previous years the NDP members of the House have not hidden their aversion to paying for any type of independent school. They consider the independent school system to be a bastion for the elite classes in society. They do not and cannot appreciate that many parents want a choice in their children's education, are prepared to pay the cost for that choice and make considerable sacrifices to do just that. It's unfortunate they do not understand that it is a matter of choice between a parent and a school and matter of values that are important to families.
While the Premier committed during the election campaign that independent school funding would not be cut or eliminated, he has allowed his Minister of Education to do just that. Hon. Speaker, this must not be the first round in the government's elimination of independent school financing.
G. Wilson: Indeed, it's a pleasure to rise in debate on Bill 20, Independent School Amendment Act, 1993, an act that members from the more liberated side of this House are free to speak and vote on according to their conscience.
An Hon. Member: All over the map.
G. Wilson: I hear the heckle from the other side. Indeed, the free vote is something that one day, hopefully, the NDP will wake up to realize is a more progressive, modern, representative and democratic procedure.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I understand the member opposite is saying that it's a little haywire. Well, I can tell you, they've got plenty of haywire over there, because there's nothing but hay to tie together.
Coming back to this particular bill -- if those that are baled on the other side might listen -- let me say that this Independent School Amendment Act is one, quite frankly, that I can support. I can support it notwithstanding the argument that I've heard from members of the third party and some members in the Liberal opposition that this may be the thin edge of the wedge and the beginning of the removal of funding from independent schools. There is indeed a grave fear and distrust of this particular administration, but I take on face value what this legislation says. The legislation does not say that it's going to remove the funding from independent schools that work within the provisions of the curriculum. Neither does it say that independent schools that are religiously based or offer a new or different approach to education but meet required standards with respect to instruction and the provincial curriculum are going to be exempted.
What the legislation does do.... I think there is some merit to be considered; and in trying to provide constructive opposition, I believe it's important to have an opportunity to point out the merits of a bill if there are merits. What the legislation does say is that group 3 -- essentially those schools that do not adhere to the regulation, the curriculum and the minimum standards for instruction -- would not be required by government to have funding, and therefore the law would not provide for these schools necessarily to be funded or financed.
[5:15]
I think that is a responsible and sensible way to proceed. Hopefully what this bill will do is encourage group 3 schools to undertake to meet the certification requirement for instructors and the curriculum requirements and to basically move toward a more accepted standard, so that they would qualify for the funding available for groups 1 and 2.
Looking at this bill, on first blush one would say that it's an assault on the independent schools. Goodness knows, I think those who have argued that more and more people in the province wish to have their children undertake education in the private system because of a failing trust in the public system have a point. I believe also that the argument that has been put forward, most recently by my colleague from Langley, with respect to the thin edge of the wedge and the distrust that the people feel for this government is an exceptionally valid point. But those who are involved in the independent schools, especially within my own riding of Powell River-Sunshine Coast, where I have had close consultation on this bill, would argue that provided the amendments are directed in the spirit in which they are offered in this bill -- that is, we can trust this administration that they will apply simply to group 3 schools and provide for some reasonably progressive
[ Page 6402 ]
steps with respect to the remaining portions of this bill -- it would become an acceptable part of legislation to them, and they have urged me, as their elected Member of the Legislative Assembly, to support this bill.
Therefore I do stand and support the bill, because that is what has been asked of me by my constituents. My constituents have required that in doing so, I make very clear that should this be the thin edge of the wedge, should this be a major amendment to the funding of independent schools introduced under the guise of this relatively innocuous amendment, it would be a tremendous breach of the trust and faith that the people of this province, even though they have been sorely tested by this administration, are still on occasion prepared to provide to this government.
In concluding my remarks, let me say that I think the warning bell has been rung by those who will oppose this -- those who want freedom of choice in providing education for our youth and for those who would return to school. I for one would champion individual rights beyond all rights in this province, including the collective right, and that's a larger philosophical debate. I recognize the warning bell that has been rung by those who oppose this bill. I am prepared on this occasion to once again trust that this bill does in fact do what it says it's going to do. Should it diverge from that, the wrath of the people of this province, especially those who are dedicated to the independent school system, will come down not only upon this government but upon this minister. I offer that as a caution.
This amendment is relatively innocuous, but if there is a movement to have the amendment apply more specifically and directly to the overall funding of independent schools, this government should have the honesty and integrity to come forward and say so. The people who are dependent on that school system wish to know that, and they wish to know that when a bill is before the House it does what it says it is going to do and is not designed simply as the beginning of a much longer discourse on the removal of funds for independent schools in their entirety.
I stand and discharge my obligation and duties as I have been requested to do by my constituents, and I am prepared to support Bill 20.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister will conclude debate on second reading of Bill 20.
Hon. A. Hagen: I want to make a few comments following on the debate that we have had on second reading. As my very first comment, I want to state that this bill is as it is presented. The wide-ranging debate that has ensued from the voices and positions of some members really concerns me. It is a debate that has condemned the public school system. It has suggested that this government, which has improved the ways in which we provide for services to children in the independent schools, is on a course of action that is nowhere indicated by this debate. Fundamentally, the focus of discussion over the last two days of debate has been on the matter of the policy decision of this government to no longer fund group 3 schools. As I said, members have chosen to read into that very simple policy decision, which is based on accountability and not on choice, a suggestion that this government is moving into a much more wide-ranging set of actions with respect to funding independent schools.
The number of students who attend independent schools has remained a fairly consistent percentage of students in the public school system. Approximately 93 to 94 percent of all students attending K to 12 in British Columbia go to our public schools. Somewhere between 6 and 7 percent attend a variety of independent schools, which range from confessional schools supported by churches through to alternative schools, schools that are modeled on the British public school and schools that are primary for aboriginal children. The range of those schools is great.
Some members have chosen this debate to make an unconscionable attack on the public school system. That approach, the use of a discussion of our school system as a means of attacking the public school system, is one that we on this side of the House must take strong exception to. I could quote a number of people who have compared our public school system, and our support for diverse and democratic education for our children, to the witch-hunts in Salem, Massachusetts, or to some failing situation in British Columbia.
I want to quote just one set of lines, because it epitomizes the kind of debate which particularly the third party has exercised during this debate. I want to express my strong support for the public school system and for the work that goes on in the choice parents make in independent schools, and I want to disassociate members from this kind of comment. Yesterday the member for Abbotsford, in a wide-ranging half-hour debate, which was an attack on the public school system, said a number of things. I'm just going to quote three lines to suggest the kind of latitude people sometimes take, in ways that are not constructive, in looking at our public school system, at the kinds of changes our system needs to have, at the independent school systems and at the accountability that must be there if people are to have public funding.
The member for Abbotsford said this about the public school system: "So if you are not a socialist, if you're not a secular humanist, not a supporter of juvenile sexual and chemical experimentation, or even if you are fearful of your child's physical safety in gang-infested neighbourhoods, you may feel uncomfortable with the public school system." For any member to talk about our public school system -- about the 93 percent, the 550,000 children who attend those schools, the teachers, principals, support staff and parents who work in those schools; which I could quote at length from that member's speech and which was echoed in some of the other speeches, then I fear for the kind of representation we have in this House.
On behalf of all of us, I want to say that we are supportive of all the schoolchildren in our province, whether in the public or independent schools. We recognize that in our diverse population in our diverse communities there will be diversity, and that there is choice in our public and independent school system. We
[ Page 6403 ]
celebrate that choice and recognize that it is an important characteristic of the education system that we offer.
Let me turn to the very simple issue of group 3 schools, which are in all characteristics, from the time that they were first established, like group 5 schools. These schools have fundamental characteristics that are regulated, because all schools in British Columbia are now regulated either by our Public School Act or by the Independent School Act. However, group 3 schools do not follow any of the curriculum, certification or exam requirements that are a part of the accountability with group 1 and 2 schools. I want to note that group 1 and 2 schools who receive funding under the Independent School Act work closely with us in a way that has them accountable for public funds around following our school curriculum, setting exams, employing certified teachers, and working with us on education change. There is an accountability here from which public funding flows. The difference with the group 3 schools is that the only basic characteristics that fit into the regulations of the act relate to the school meeting certain requirements and not fomenting racial or civil hatred or disobedience.
This is an issue, then, of where public funds flow. They flow to where there are accountabilities to the standards that we set in education. It is not a matter of choice, and it is not a first step in respect to the funding of independent schools. In fact members may recall, as we discussed in the estimates, that we have looked at ways that government can, through appropriate accountabilities, assist the independent schools in providing better for special-needs children. Improvements have been made in consultation with the Federation of Independent School Associations in B.C.
A number of members have got past the paranoia, and have recognized that this is exactly what it says it is: simply a matter of us looking at the accountabilities and making a change based on those accountabilities. They have also looked at the other aspects of the legislation and note that there are, in fact, improvements. Around the wide range of independent schools that do receive support from the taxpayers of British Columbia, some of the smaller schools will be assisted in making choices, based on those schools meeting criteria that fit with a public accountability. This is not a matter of choice; this is a matter of those accountabilities. We as a government continue to provide support for independent schools based on those accountabilities.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Hagen: If the member for Surrey-Cloverdale would allow me to speak without interrupting, as I listened to him and all others without interrupting, it would make it easier for me to conclude these remarks. I ask for his indulgence in that regard.
As we noted with this bill and with the bill on the School Act, these are amending bills where it is more appropriate for us to debate and discuss the specifics. I believe that we have had a wide-ranging discussion on the major public policy decision. I welcome the support of people from both sides of the House who recognize that this is not an issue of choice, but that it is an issue of there being particular curriculum, certification and exam standards that are a part of the funding basis for independent schools, that groups 1 and 2 schools follow those accountabilities thoroughly, that they work with us around our education agenda to improve our education in the public school system and that they are supportive of the public school system as a part of the broad fabric of our province, rather than looking at a divide-and-conquer approach, which has been characteristic of some of the members here who I believe have spoken irresponsibly in what should have been a debate on the principle of this particular legislation.
With that, I move second reading of Bill 20.
[5:30]
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 41 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Boone |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Charbonneau |
Pement |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Hammell |
|
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
Smallwood |
|
Hagen |
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
|
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
|
Lovick |
Ramsey |
Farnworth |
|
Evans |
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
|
Doyle |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
Janssen |
Wilson |
| Dalton | Gingell | Tyabji |
|
Anderson |
Symons | |
|
NAYS -- 9 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Stephens |
|
Hanson |
Neufeld |
Fox |
|
Hurd |
Warnke |
K. Jones |
Bill 20, Independent School Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I believe we're about to receive a report from Committee A.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I should advise all hon. members that the House will be sitting tomorrow at 2 o'clock.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.
[ Page 6404 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:50 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
(continued)
On vote 32: minister's office, $375,354 (continued).
The Chair: I will explain to the committee why the TV set is in the corner. During the Ministry of Tourism's estimates, we had members and a minister with an individual problem and a difficulty, and we made accommodations for that in the committee. That's the reason for the TV set; we are accommodating a need. I think it's one of the advantages of this committee that we can accommodate those needs when it's necessary. An individual with hearing difficulties will now be able to hear the debates as they are broadcast on channel 59, audio only.
Hon. J. Cashore: I thought that perhaps there was an afternoon Montreal hockey game.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to thank the minister for the discussion we had yesterday. I think we made a lot of progress in terms of getting an idea of the activities of the Ministry of Environment. I look forward to the flow chart that will come out as a result of that. We raised a lot of questions that hopefully will be answered over the next few months as the estimates play out.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Along the same lines, I'd like to talk about the corporate resource inventory initiative, and I hope that the minister will also be answering questions with regard to the $10 million expenditure last year. I don't know if the minister has his copy at hand, but in the environmental brief that was provided by the staff, we've got the budget highlights of the protected-areas strategy, the CORE planning process and the aboriginal issues, and we canvassed yesterday how they connect and how they don't.
With regard to the corporate resource inventory initiative, it's my understanding through the staff that CRII priorities are going to be driven now by CORE. Could the minister first of all give us a bit of an idea about how well that initiative went last year -- I think there may be some encouraging findings -- and what the targets are for CRII this year? Maybe then we can relay it to what we found out yesterday with regard to the structure of the parks plan and protected areas, the CORE planning process and the aboriginal negotiations.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the reference to how the CRII work went last year, I will ask that I be given a note on that so that I can give you a more definitive answer on what was accomplished. With regard to the briefing notes, those should be ready and available this afternoon, and we will send them over to you at that time.
With regard to the way of phrasing it, I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think the hon. member said that CORE drives the corporate resource inventory initiative. I think it goes without saying that in all these initiatives it's government that is driving the initiative. But it is recognizing, in apportioning the resources of the initiative, that the prime consideration -- the primary need -- is to enable the urgent work of the three CORE tables. So that is where the majority of the corporate resource inventory initiative is being focused this year -- to enable the CORE process. Therefore CORE has a major role in that.
I'm going to sit down and listen to the next question, and take a moment to look at this note.
J. Tyabji: If we look at tab 4, specifically page 3, we've got program objectives for the corporate resource inventory initiative. Starting on page 1, we have the photocopy from the estimates and then a description of the corporate inventory initiative, in which the funding is down from last year from $10 million to $6.34 million. That's why I'd be very curious to see what the findings of the initiative were. Based on the discussion we had last year during the estimates, the minister at that time had outlined....
And this CRII is a new initiative. It was probably long overdue if it was as described at the time, and that was basically taking inventory of what we have. That's something that the official opposition has been asking for for years. Even before we were the official opposition we were saying a resource inventory definitely was necessary for the province.
So keep in mind that $10 million was spent last year on the resource inventory, and now it's down to $6.34 million. And I see that the difference.... You see right underneath funding, for example, that it says "Priorities set by Commission on Resources and Environment." And then, if we turn to the third page, it says "Social and Economic Information" at the bottom. It says:
"In '93-94 CRII will also support socioeconomic analysis, for example, measuring direct and indirect social and economic impacts of land use, options proposed by the CORE table, resource on options for economic transitions resulting from options proposed by CORE, and develop economic and social profiles for CORE regions."
Now that's a huge departure from last year in terms of the mandate for CRII. It says that the corporate resource inventory initiative's committee is made up of staff from all the respective ministries, who are outlined above, and that priorities are determined by CORE.
Where I have a bit of a problem is that when we talked about CRII last year as a new initiative, it seemed to be something that was distinct from government and basically almost like a data-referencing centre, where -- from the discussions we had -- we had a team of biologists and field researchers who were going out to take stock of Crown assets and, in addition to Crown
[ Page 6405 ]
assets, I guess you would say a biological inventory of what there was. I'm not sure, for example, to what extent this includes the spotted owl recovery team. I'm not sure if the spotted owl recovery team is part of the corporate resource inventory initiative or if that's a separate thing, because we didn't receive any public reporting of the findings of the resource inventory initiative.
That's what I'm trying to find out. Based on the mandate that you outlined last year, there's been silence as to what the findings were for that $10 million, and now I find that the mandate is changing. I'd be happy to hear the minister's comments.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll just go back to an earlier question, and I know that if I miss the question you just asked, you'll come back to it. Last fiscal year, the final spending on CRII was $8,999,994 -- so $9 million. I should point out that that's not distinct from the government part of the integrated management approach, so there is ongoing government funding through the line budgets that also goes into inventory work. So it's not...
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. That is part of the ongoing work. It has been for some time. The concern that you, hon. member, and I have expressed in the past -- prior to the NDP becoming government -- was that the amount of financial resources going into inventory was woefully inadequate. Obviously one of the things that the corporate resource inventory initiative is dealing with to a considerable extent is backlog.
I have here some information on what was accomplished in fiscal 1992-93 under the corporate resource inventory initiative: development and testing of new approaches to tourism and forest recreation resource inventories; archaeology and ethnohistory data handling; old growth and biodiversity data for Vancouver Island; wildlife habitat mapping in selected provincial parks; water resources and fish inventories on Vancouver Island; and monitoring of threatened species. Just as an aside, I think that probably relates to a question you asked on such concerns as the spotted owl.
[3:00]
Then in another category, there is completion of fieldwork on mineral survey and rare and endangered flora and fauna in the Windy Craggy area. I can tell you that when I was up in that area last year, I met with one of the teams that was carrying out the corporate resource inventory initiative work in that region -- the initiation of innovative mineral potential assessment system, and an integrated habitat resource survey underway in the Brooks planning area. I believe that's the Brooks Peninsula in the Strathcona timber supply area north of the Clayoquot on Vancouver Island.
Fieldwork on lake and stream inventory and on slope failure criteria is currently underway on Vancouver Island. And in Smithers the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests regional GIS centre is being established as a pilot. It's also underway in Kamloops and Nanaimo. Also there was a compilation of 24 planimetric and 84 digital map sheets at a scale of 1 to 250,000; 43 terrain resource inventory mapping -- TRIM -- map sheets for Vancouver Island to be completed by March 1993; and completion of 44 cadastral maps at 1 to 250,000. So that is in reference to your question about CRII and how it went last year.
I think your next question had to do with the way in which the corporate resource inventory initiative is being administered this year. You then read from the briefing note information that has gone into the record because you read it, so I think I'll just listen to your next question.
J. Tyabji: There's a lot more information here that I'd like to.... Before I go back to the question that I asked before you answered my previous question, I'd like to ask some more questions on the answer that you gave me to the previous question.
I'm quite intrigued by the corporate resource inventory initiative, as I mentioned last year. It sounds like some very interesting data has come forward. To start from the list, for example -- you were going quite quickly through it, so I don't know that I've got it all down -- CRII has done a study, as you've listed it here, of old-growth forests and their ecosystems. I believe that's what you read out. Could you give us some idea of the findings of that study and what the ministry will be doing with it?
Hon. J. Cashore: As I understand it, the question is about some specific results of a study on one of the items listed here. Perhaps you could refer me again to which one it is. I will have to get some information from officials before being able to answer it.
J. Tyabji: Maybe for the purpose of time, I will just say that there are very few things under here that I won't canvass. So if you have background material on these, maybe we can go on to something else, and the ministry staff can come forward with it. Then we can go into this. As I mentioned last year, I think that the findings of CRII for the year are going to be instrumental in directing what the ministry will be doing for the next several years, because the resource inventory was so long overdue. So if it's possible to get some of the background....
Even while you're getting it, when you talk about the planimetric and digital map sheets, I have been planning to canvass the computer systems and the integration of the Ministry of Environment computer systems with the Ministry of Forests, because I understand there are two computer banks there. So if there's also background data on the existing information systems, that would be useful. Having made that request and assuming that through the magic of technology someone somewhere is scurrying to meet it, I'll move back to the mandate of CRII this year.
The reason I'm concerned, as I say, when you talk about the social and economic information of CRII on page 3 of tab 4, is that that is a major shift in mandate. Last year, when CRII was brought forward, it turned
[ Page 6406 ]
out that you'd underspent the budget, which is commendable. It seems that you've got a lot of data there, but now you're shifting into something like socioeconomic analysis. It seems like a much more nebulous mandate, and I have a lot of concerns with that. I'm not sure what it means to say "social and economic impacts of land use options proposed by the CORE table." In what way is that referenced? For example, is CRII now going to be looking at loss of taxation revenues due to erosion of the working forest through CORE proposals?
When you say "economic transitions," is that in relation to small-town shutdowns? It says "to develop economic and social profiles for CORE regions." This is a major departure from last year, when you had field researchers and biologists bringing together data and putting together not even recommendations but raw data for the ministry. Now you end up with something that is clearly outside the mandate of the Ministry of Environment: talking about social impacts of land use strategy.
In addition to that, other ministries are doing the same thing. So how do we define that? What exactly is going on? Perhaps I'm reading this incorrectly, and that's not the mandate. Maybe there has to be some further clarification.
Hon. J. Cashore: That's an excellent question. The fact is that the corporate resource inventory initiative comes through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks vote. It has a multifaceted, interagency reality, in that we then apportion from the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to other ministries sums of that money to carry out inventory work that needs to be done in different areas. That was certainly the case last year, and as I went through that list it made it very clear that there were initiatives in other ministries, such as the work in the Ministry of Tourism, that had to do with archaeology and ethnohistory.
The hon. member is correct that the presence of socioeconomic evaluation as part of CRII is new this year. It's new in the use of those funds, and it's there at the request of CORE. It's in recognition of the fact that data gathering also includes economic analysis, and it's a logical extension of the cold, hard data that has been gathered. So now they go to that further stage and ask: in the interests of serving the public, how do we take that data and extrapolate from that what it's going to mean to flesh-and-blood human beings living in certain areas of the province? So the socioeconomic studies this year would make up about 10 percent of the CRII budget.
The whole issue that we're dealing with, especially the area of the CORE tables, involves trying to understand what the habitat factors are, what the forest resource factors are and what the factors with regard to fish and wildlife and other data are. As we move forward in deciding on what areas are to be protected and on other decisions that fall within the aegis of CORE, one of the things that it's all about is how that impacts the various communities of people who are in those areas. That is why that is a logical extension of the work of CRII, which has been targeted as -- I guess you'd have to say -- part of the priority of CRII for this year, which, as I said, is focused on those three regional tables.
J. Tyabji: So I'm to understand, then, that it's only about 10 percent of the budget for CRII that is going toward fulfilling CORE's....
Hon. J. Cashore: Socioeconomic....
J. Tyabji: Okay. Then what will the other 90 percent be? Could the minister give me an update on the mandate for this year?
Hon. J. Cashore: I've just been handed a document that indicates the program objectives for this year. It is similar to the information that I sent over to you a little while ago, and we'll send this over to you, too. For the record, for this year the objectives are: to provide direct support to the CORE planning process; to develop specific basic inventories and systems for those resources which do not have a well-developed system -- that involves tourism and recreation resources, archaeology resources, biodiversity of flora and fauna; to improve basic inventory of cultural and natural resources -- that involves fisheries and water resources, wildlife habitat and domestic animal range; to produce a new generation of interpretive mineral potential inventories; to improve regional use and service of GIS resource data through establishment of Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks regional GIS centres; to update and improve base maps of defined areas; restructuring of selected 1 to 250,000 maps; cadastral mapping to improve definition of private land; and TRIM map sheets to complete Vancouver Island. As you'll see, hon. member, some of that echoes some of the objectives from the previous year.
Under social and economic information, in 1993-94 CRII will also support socioeconomic analysis -- for example, measuring direct and indirect social and economic impacts of land use options proposed by the CORE table; research on options for economic transitions resulting from options proposed by the CORE table; and developing economic and social profiles for CORE regions.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the data that had been gathered -- I happen to have this here -- when we're talking about basic inventories and systems for these resources, are we talking about computer systems? Are we talking about setting up something? I'm not sure what that word is in reference to. If a system is being set up through CRII, is it automatically integrated with the other ministries, or would it just be the Ministry of Environment?
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that a lot of coordination goes on among these different systems, and it interconnects with various processes that are underway. For instance, when it refers to TRIM, that is a process that was ongoing and existed prior to CRII. To enable the work that's done through the corporate
[ Page 6407 ]
resource inventory initiative, by definition it has to interconnect well with other agencies and systems that are already there. While you and I have often said that there's a need for more work in gathering inventory, I think we have to recognize that the government does have quite a sophisticated infrastructure in terms of its systems development. Indeed, some of those systems are being looked at by other nations as the systems they may wish to purchase to assist them with some of their mapping and that sort of thing.
[3:15]
J. Tyabji: My understanding -- and maybe the minister can help me out with this -- was that when the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment set up their systems for maps and mapping inventory, they set them up on two separate computers, and the maps cannot talk to each other, if you will. They're on separate systems, and one ministry can't access the other's computer database. Now they have to change it over. Additionally, many of the ministries are still using microfiche for information storage rather than laser disk on the computer.
Hon. J. Cashore: There's always an ongoing need to try to get developing technology and the kinds of facilities that are available to be updated, interfaced and all those things. That's an ongoing challenge because the technology is always changing. You were saying -- I don't know if I can say it's correct in detail, but it certainly is in essence -- that there's always a need to do our very best to be able to connect with each other's information systems. It's my understanding that that is certainly the case on an interagency basis. The emphasis is on shared data standards to make the information readily accessible and as useful as possible.
With regard to the very specific aspects you have identified, I will see if I need more information to get back to you on that. I believe that one of the processes that is well underway is seeking to make sure our information bases interconnect as well as they possibly can.
The Chair: The Chair would caution all members that those technical matters which best come under the purview of B.C. Systems Corporation might best be canvassed under the estimates of the Minister of Government Services.
J. Tyabji: The last question on this that I'd like to get to the minister is that while the minister is pursuing data collection through CRII and setting up systems for all this, there is obviously the motivation to ensure, when everything's brought in, that everybody will be able to access it.
Having received that assurance, then, we can go to the major 1992-93 accomplishments of CRII. I know there's some background information coming, but I'll start to give some general questions on that.
First, underneath this, you have development and testing of new approaches to tourism and forest recreation resource inventories. I'm not quite sure what that means. When you're talking about tourism and forest recreation resource inventories, are you talking about access to parks, to wilderness areas, to hiking trails and to whale-watching expeditions? What exactly is that with regard to?
Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that where there's development and testing of new approaches for tourism and forest resource inventory, we would recognize that we have forest recreation areas. It actually says: "forest recreation resource inventory." Those forest recreation areas, just as the park areas, are part of the considerations of the protected-areas strategy. Therefore there's a need for information on the direct relationship between tourism and the potential of those forest recreation areas. That's what that would be for: to simply try to get data that would relate to the tourism potential in those areas. I've mentioned to officials that if there's more to that than what I would say when I get on my feet, then they would hand me some more notes.
J. Tyabji: I'm wondering who is drawing up the criteria for tourism or forest recreation resources. What kind of data does one collect to build this database? I'm having problems with the concept, because I'm not sure which expert one hires and what kind of report there is at the end of it. Some of the other ones are pretty well raw data, so I can understand it.... I mean, for wildlife habitat mapping, there is a biological process. In terms of tourism and forest recreation resource inventories, I'm not sure what the new approach would be that they test. Who would do it, and how?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure that I heard all aspects of the question. With regard to the question of who sets out the criteria for some of these initiatives, for instance, that would be done through the protected-areas strategy, and the administrative instrument within the strategy is the interagency committee. That interagency committee would involve senior officials in all the ministries that are involved. It would be my understanding, therefore, that where there was a specific project -- in this case involving the Forests ministry and the Tourism ministry -- they would work together in developing the project. Then they would bring it to the interagency committee of the protected-areas strategy, which would review the project, and possibly, as a result of that process, it would be refined to some extent and carried out.
J. Tyabji: It's not that I'm wondering about the process; I think I understand the process. What I'm trying to figure out is how you define a forest recreation resource. What is it, who defines it and how do they have the expertise? It's not the process; I understand that would go to a committee. Considering that this was an accomplishment from last year under this initiative, what did they end up defining it as? What was it that they ended up having data on when they came up with the report?
[ Page 6408 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be defined as landscape, natural features, fish and recreation values -- anything that would make up a natural site.
J. Tyabji: If it's defined as something like landscape, I'm assuming that there has been a report then. The minister doesn't have to get up to confirm this, but has there been a report of forest recreation resource inventory? Is there some kind of paperwork on this, or is it not finished yet?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that the ongoing day-to-day work of the corporate resource inventory initiative is such that it feeds and interacts with the ongoing process -- for instance, it's used to inform the protected-areas strategy. So it's not done in the sense that there is a report, such as a commission report. It's part of the ongoing development of data and interaction. It's the ongoing conversation that has the most up-to-date information as that process proceeds. So it's my understanding that the answer is no, there isn't a specific report as such. There is ongoing reporting constantly through this process. It wouldn't be like a report with several junctures, where you'd have this large document that comes to several conclusions and recommendations. It would be most likely and most often an ongoing process, but I assume there could be some reports involved too.
J. Tyabji: What I'm trying to get at here is that, if an accomplishment from last year's CRII was the development and testing of a new approach to forest recreation resource inventory, it sounds like the definition of a forest recreation resource is fairly subjective. I'm not sure how you quantify the accomplishment. I'm coming back to this only because as we go on we'll see that there are some things -- mapping and archaeology data -- that are very concrete. But in this first one, in terms of tourism and forest recreation resource inventory, I don't know how you'd do an inventory of it.
The reason I'm sticking on this is that I think it's fairly important in terms of the protected-areas strategy and the land use strategy that CORE is developing. If they're using a forest recreation resource inventory as a reference source for developing their protected-areas strategy or their parks plan or whatever it is, and if it is a subjective measurement, then the public should have access to the subjective measurement they're using -- especially if tax dollars are being spent on this. The Ministry of Environment has some kind of yardstick saying: "Here's a forest recreation resource; this is our definition of it." If it's subjective, then every person in British Columbia will have their own definition of it. And I'm just wondering which definition the parks plan or the protected-areas strategy will be referring to.
Hon. J. Cashore: A lot of this information is made available to the public through the protected-areas strategy process, so hard information gathered through this process is released from time to time. As I say, it's an ongoing process. Information becomes available through the protected-areas strategy process.
J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that the CRII, in addition to being a resource base for CORE, is also a resource base for the protected-areas strategy? This year we have this -- at least 10 percent of it anyway -- being directed at CORE's request. In the last year I haven't seen any reporting from the corporate resource inventory initiative, but if something has come out on this I'd be very curious to see it. If it is going straight to the protected-areas strategy without a public reporting process, then it would be interesting to find out about it. Or maybe it's just being amalgamated in the work being done, in which case we're basically in the dark.
Hon. J. Cashore: The work of the corporate resource inventory initiative is reported through CORE, through the protected-areas strategy. The protected-areas strategy is a component of the CORE process, so the information is reported through that. With regard to whether or not there is a comprehensive annual report of the corporate inventory initiative, we're going to find that out. But the fact is that CRII is there as a servant of those land use planning processes, and the basis of any reporting mechanism is through the reporting that takes place in that way.
J. Tyabji: I would hope that CRII would be a servant of everybody and not just those processes.
Based on the discussion we had last year, I did actually expect some kind of annual report that would release the data or the findings of CRII. Last year, for example, when we were canvassing what the $10 million was going to go for, the minister I'm sure will remember that we talked about the fact that we don't have adequate inventory of our Crown lands in terms of forests that are left. We don't have adequate inventory of what state the lakes are in.
We have before us right now the state-of-the-environment report that, to my mind, is like the photo of what B.C. is -- it's a snapshot -- whereas the CRII process is the depth and the background to it and gives us enough details so that we can measure these things. So I actually did expect that at the end of it -- even if it wasn't a publication like the state-of-the-environment report -- there would be some quantifiable result by which we could say: "This is what we have." If it turns out that one of the accomplishments is, for example, the forest recreation resource inventory, and if we find out that the yardstick for that was subjective -- that it was something like a landscape -- then I'm not sure how that ends up being of service to the public if it's not meant to be of service to the public. If it is meant to go through the protected-areas strategy or CORE or something like that, then it seems to me that the money being spent on this for those purposes should actually be within those mechanisms and not separate. It's a bit misleading to think that this year $6.3 million is being spent on this. Based on the discussion of the mandate that we had before, one would think that we're going to end up with a lot of scientific data and quantifiable results. That's why I'm getting to this; I really want to nail this down. Last year it was almost $10 million. I think it's extremely important that we have that data,
[ Page 6409 ]
but I'm not sure how we get access to it, or if it's just something that is being used within the system.
[3:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: The quantifiable results are primarily part of what ensues from the CORE and protected-areas strategy processes. However, I would certainly be willing to look into developing a report to the public on the CRII initiatives. I think that suggestion has merit. Every time you do something like this, there's a cost factor to it. But I take your point seriously: the public could be well served by an annual report. I'm going to ask officials to follow up on that and look into it. We'd be glad to hear further suggestions from you with regard to what that should include.
J. Tyabji: One thing that comes to mind when I look at this list is that there's a lot of data -- for example, the archaeology and ethnohistory. There are groups in the province that would love to have access to that. I assumed last year when we talked about it that that was one of the reasons why we were doing it.
One frustration in the past for many of us who have been involved in our communities -- or whatever groups we may be involved in -- was that the raw data and the information hasn't been available. As the Environment critic as well, I wouldn't mind knowing what there is out there. Even if there isn't an in-depth publication done, I think it would be very useful for the ministry to at least put out a news release saying that if the public requests this information, it's available. I know that the mining industry, for example, would love to see the latest -- as you say, the next generation of -- mineral maps. That's very important. I'm assuming that the ministry has done the new generation of maps based on satellite information, because I know that that was overdue. If that is the case, then there are a lot of stakeholders who would love to have some kind of access to it.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would suggest to the hon. member that some of those questions with regard to mining and archaeology might be directed to those ministers. We could certainly report out on the work that was done. I think it should be understood, however, that some kinds of inventory data cannot be given out, for very valid reasons -- for instance, the location of an endangered species, archaeological sites such as burial caves and that sort of thing. So there is a need to have some care in considering what would be released.
J. Tyabji: I fully understand that some of the information is sensitive, but I also think that just for the purpose of public information.... Am I to understand that the state-of-the-environment report would have drawn on some of the information that CRII has developed over the last year?
Hon. J. Cashore: The state-of-the-environment report did not look upon CRII as a major source, but some of that data was available in the development of that report. That is correct. In the first two or three pages of the report you can see that a number of sources were accessed. As I've said before, we could have had 120 pages on just about any of the topics in there. So in a way it is a snapshot.
J. Tyabji: That's basically everything I wanted to do under CRII. I hope that more information is forthcoming. If there is, I'd be very interested to look at it. Based on the discussions I've had with a lot of people around the province who have a sincere commitment to the environment, the economy and all kinds of aspects of our resources, I think that some of this information could be very useful -- if nothing else, to perhaps stall some of the disinformation out there. Sometimes people are misinformed, and if there is better information available, the more public access the better.
At this point I would defer to any other members who have something to raise on the land resource issue.
W. Hurd: I have a question about the socio-economic work of the corporate resource inventory initiative. Can the minister describe the nature of the public consultation process that would go into communities to provide input to the ministry on the effect of the protected-areas strategy on their businesses or community stability?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that the consultation would take place at the CORE table in those three CORE regions. The work of the socio-economic study would be the gathering of data.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware, however, of a number of study groups that have been formed in connection with the protected-areas strategy. I'm thinking specifically of the spotted owl recovery team, which has been mentioned already for the Sioux timber supply area in British Columbia, and also of the Pinecone Lake-Burke Mountain study, which is ongoing in the Fraser timber supply area. While I recognize that these study teams do have representation from a variety of stakeholder interest groups, obviously the outcome will have some small effect -- perhaps even a significant effect -- on socioeconomic values in those particular areas of the province. So my question stands: what direct public input will the ministry be receiving? Will there be any sort of public consultation, public meetings, public hearings or land use planning process that will be directly accessible by the public of the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that the process that would incorporate public consultation in those areas would be carried on by the protected-areas strategy study committee, which would have input from the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. That's with reference to the Pinecone Lake-Burke Mountain example. This is outside one of the three CORE regions, so the process is in the hands of the protected-areas strategy study committee, with input from the Ministry of Economic Development. It's in that process that the public input would take place.
[ Page 6410 ]
W. Hurd: The reading of the briefing material on the corporate resource inventory initiative would seem to suggest that there is a socioeconomic consideration being entertained in connection with these decisions -- i.e., the direct impact on jobs and the economy within the regions under consideration. Is the minister advising the committee that people who have those specific economic-related concerns should in fact be addressing them to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, and that somehow he will bring those concerns to the attention of either the study group or the Minister of Environment?
Hon. J. Cashore: No. What I'm saying is that the process for that public input and for that economic analysis is part of the process that the protected-areas strategy study committee is in charge of, and that Economic Development, Small Business and Trade has input into that process. This differs from where the socioeconomic study aspect is involved. It differs from where CRII is involved, because CRII is directed mainly to the three CORE regions where it involves socio-economic analysis. So socioeconomic analysis, in areas such as Burke mountain-Pinecone Lake would be part of the interagency process that is directed by the protected-areas strategy committee.
W. Hurd: I'm hope I'm not tested on that explanation later.
Perhaps I could ask a series of questions about an issue raised yesterday by my colleague the hon. Environment critic. It concerns the resources devoted to aboriginal affairs matters within the vote of the ministry. Can the minister describe what role the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks plays in assisting with the development of the joint stewardship agreements, which are being signed with individual bands in the province? Is that indeed part of the mandate within the aboriginal affairs section of the vote to provide resources and information to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in negotiating these joint stewardship agreements?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the joint stewardship agreements, I'm not sure that I understood the question, frankly. Perhaps you could restate it after I make a couple of comments. Aboriginal Affairs is in a supportive role with regard to the work we are doing on joint stewardship agreements.
W. Hurd: My understanding of the term "stewardship" implies that there's a joint stewardship not only of resources but also the environment and the land base. My question is whether the ministry is devoting any resources during this fiscal year to assist this process of formulating these joint stewardship agreements. Perhaps I can make the question even more specific than that. Perhaps I can ask the minister what his definition is of a joint stewardship agreement, and whether his ministry has to provide any resources or any money to help define the concept, or to assist the Crown in meeting any responsibilities that it might have with respect to environment and land use.
[3:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: It's an Aboriginal Affairs policy which all ministries have a role in bringing into effect, depending on what the particular issue is.
W. Hurd: The minister is quoted publicly as saying that the standards of provincial stewardship of the land and resources -- but particularly the land -- outweigh any other consideration, including that of, say, aboriginal title or aboriginal settlement. Since the hunting regulations, for example, are different for aboriginal people, I would assume that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks would have to devote considerable resources to ensuring that it can back up the statement that provincial standards of environment and land use are inviolate when it comes to any group of people in our society. It is the understanding of the opposition that joint stewardship agreements also represent negotiations around environment and land use. My question to the minister is: would the ministry have to take some sort of interest in what interpretation aboriginal people put on the rights and responsibilities that they have under these joint stewardship agreements? Because they occupy a different status in terms of the regulations within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, will they not override the provincial standards for hunting, fishing or any other type of activity on the land base?
Hon. J. Cashore: The government spent a year in developing the interim guidelines, which were necessary because of the change in circumstances brought about by a significant court decision. The court of the land made it very clear that government has a fiduciary responsibility with regard to first nations, and that this responsibility relates to the gathering of food for sustenance and traditional purposes. Government is faced with the fact that in administering the standards of the ministry -- administering the law -- there is now a new reality that has to be taken into consideration. In developing the interim guidelines, there was extensive consultation with first nations, with third parties, and certainly within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks itself, because this was a tremendously challenging situation for the conservation officer service. It's also an issue that relates to the Ministry of Attorney General in terms of what kinds of information prosecutions would proceed on. It was realized that in order to give a clear definition to the conservation officers as how to proceed under the circumstances, we needed to come forward with a set of guidelines. Those guidelines clearly recognize that the number one consideration of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks is the conservation of the resource. That is absolutely fundamental. We also recognize that in order to achieve our responsibility as carried forward by those court decisions, we have a fiduciary obligation which recognizes the need for allocation of amounts of game to first nations. We also recognize that the best way to achieve that would be through being able to achieve a consensus with first nations when it comes to allocation amounts.
So the process that we are seeking to achieve successfully during this year is through consultation with first nations and third parties to recognize that
[ Page 6411 ]
there is a common ground among all of those entities: the government, the first nations, and the various members of the hunting and fishing community. The common ground among those various entities is to recognize the need for conservation and the need to share appropriately, and also to recognize our fiduciary obligation as stated by the courts.
One of the things that has come up in the past year, for example, was when the sheep was killed in that rather notorious incident near Salmo. There were demands coming from virtually every one of those communities that the perpetrator of that act should be dealt with to the letter of the law, and charges were subsequently laid. I think the indication is that first nations people are willing to see that happen, too, given that often they are very concerned about people coming in from outside an area to take game without having the permission of the leadership of the first nation in that region. So there's a ground there for a lot of cooperative work to be done among the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the first nations and also the third parties. There is a way of coming through this issue with something that will indicate that we have found a common ground and that we can share appropriately, and we can do so in a way that's cognizant of the changing reality.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the minister's response, but I must say I'm somewhat troubled by the implications. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks develops regulations with respect to wildlife management and conservation that have at their heart the preservation of the species and the responsible management of fish, wildlife and the environment. What I hear the minister saying is that in certain circumstances -- perhaps in many circumstances -- certain rights of aboriginal people as defined by court judgments, which I intend to try and review in the next 24 hours now that he's brought them to my attention.... The minister will be aware of the number of complaints that have been received about the fact that requests for hunting out of season, for example, by aboriginal groups or aboriginal representatives have increased substantially. I guess what I'm asking for is some idea of what the minister means when he says that the standards of provincial stewardship for wildlife will supersede any other consideration, including whatever rights or requirements might accrue to the aboriginal people for the need to take wildlife for sustenance, for example, which is certainly recognized as being a legitimate reason for hunting out of season. The minister will be aware of the number of concerns that exist out there in the province about the lack of a clearly defined policy, and the inability of the ministry to enforce its own guidelines with respect to some activities on the land base. My question to the minister is: is he satisfied that he has the ability within the enforcement branch of the ministry to successfully monitor activities on the land base, particularly as they relate to aboriginal requests for hunting and fishing out of season?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, with regard to the question, I think the hon. members will recognize that this is an enormous issue. It's as large as all of the great British Columbia outdoors. I would be the first to recognize that we can use more people in the conservation officer service to help us adequately monitor and enforce hunting regulations. Having said that, since we became government, we have made a major step toward improving that situation by adding significantly to the numbers in the conservation officer service.
In response to the question -- can I give assurance that these interim guidelines are going to be successful? -- the fact is that we will be judged successful on the basis of the public being able to see that there are successful prosecutions of offences. If you will pardon the expression, the jury is still out on that. It behooves us to continue to work as diligently as we possibly can to ensure that that is done successfully.
Let me make it very clear, as I have stated before, that the purpose of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in this regard is the conservation of the resource. The guidelines -- I commend them to you, because I think they very clearly answer the questions the hon. member is asking -- state that in instances where a species is threatened or where it is considered that there should be no taking of animals at all because of the potential crash of that species population, then there would not be a taking; there would not be any negotiation of a taking in that case. In the case of a species on which a great deal of control on the amount of taking has to be put in place in order to manage it extremely carefully, we would do everything we could to successfully negotiate an amount with the first nation that was consistent with the inventory-informed decision about the amount of game that could be taken. Then, for the remainder of instances, there would be a limited-entry draw to apportion the number of animals that may be taken by third parties. The third instance is where the species is in a healthy state in terms of numbers. The situation would apply where there would be no limited entry. There would be the usual considerations of a hunting licence and of quotas, as set out in the regular procedures. So it's clear that conservation is the bottom line, and that there is a need to negotiate as well as is humanly possible with first nations and third parties when it comes to apportionment, in those instances where that is to take place.
It should also be pointed out that if we look upon this as an opportunity, agreement with bands and third parties often means that they end up helping with the enforcement of our agreement that there is a need for conservation of the resource. I think this needs to be done in a way that gets people working together for a common purpose to the greatest extent possible. This is very much an opportunity for us to make use of that out there. For instance, the Nuu-chah-nulth offered a reward for the illegal shooting of elk in the Nahmint Lake area. Also, I think that when we are able to work on this in a cooperative way, it will make much more available inventories from the first nations people, which can be added to the inventories that the Ministry
[ Page 6412 ]
of Environment, Lands and Parks has gathered, so that we can have accurate information about populations.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I will settle, then, for a categorical assurance from the minister to this committee that the joint stewardship agreements -- which imply agreements over resources, land, wildlife and every type of activity -- will in no way compromise any standards that might exist for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks when it comes to wildlife stewardship, protection of water and any type of activity routinely monitored and enforced by the ministry.
[4:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I'm pleased to give that assurance.
C. Serwa: The minister, in one of his comments with respect to the generation of these interim guidelines, indicated extensive consultations with third-party interests. Would the minister elaborate on which third-party interests were involved in the consultations?
Hon. J. Cashore: There were some discussions in advance of the guidelines with the B.C. Wildlife Federation, but not the kind of intense discussion that is going to take place now that the guidelines are in place. During this year there's going to be very intense consultation with the Wildlife Federation, guide-outfitters, trappers and, of course, with first nations. But the question was with regard to third parties. Our intent is that in January we will bring in the permanent guidelines. All those consultations are getting underway, and they're going to be happening from now until the time that we plan to bring in the permanent guidelines, in January.
C. Serwa: I'm glad that the minister corrected his misleading earlier statement about intensive consultations taking place prior to the establishment of the interim guidelines. For the sake of credibility and clarity, I think we have to be very cautious, and very explicit and accurate in particular comments. Certainly at the recent annual general convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, I was unable to find anyone who had participated in those extensive consultations prior to the interim guidelines' establishment.
For my interest, perhaps the minister would tell me the population of status and non-status aboriginal people in British Columbia.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm tempted to guess, but I think I'd better get the information for the hon. member. Yes, I will err on the side of discretion, but it is tempting to give my best guess. I will wait until we get that information factually.
C. Serwa: The total is probably somewhere about 140,000 to 150,000 status and non-status aboriginal people in the province. Does the minister know where 50 percent of the aboriginal population of British Columbia resides?
Hon. J. Cashore: Where 50 percent of the aboriginal population of the province resides? I think I'm getting into a kind of 20 questions here, and I think I should enable the hon. member to give his speech and make his statements and not be trapped in this "over to you, Alphonse" routine.
C. Serwa: I've heard the saying "ignorance is bliss," and perhaps the Minister of Environment is very happy with his ignorance. The reality is that 50 percent of the indigenous native population in B.C. lives in the greater Vancouver area. When we're talking about aboriginal rights with respect to hunting and fishing, it's very important to know numbers. When you're talking about allocation, it's very important to know numbers. There are other realities that have to prevail. Perhaps the minister could inform me: of the total salmon catch in British Columbia, what is the percentage that is now caught by the aboriginal people?
Hon. J. Cashore: DFO says that is apparently about 4 percent of the total catch.
C. Serwa: That is an erroneous answer. The reality is that the food fishery is responsible for about 3 percent of the total annual harvest of salmon in B.C., but the commercial native fishery is responsible for an additional 17 percent. So approximately 20 percent of the annual salmon harvest in the province is presently in the hands of the native community already. I think it's important that we start to understand some of the facts and figures before we go off tilting at windmills because, without a basic foundation, the road of good intentions leads straight to hell.
At the annual convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, there was a great deal of concern expressed.... I know that the minister and members of his staff were there. To the credit of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, it didn't load the panels, and the information that came out of those panel discussions was broad-ranging. The native component was there, yes, representing the fishermen and the industry. A wide range of perspectives was brought forward. I was unable to catch the Saturday morning presentation in which I would assume that the ADM, Mr. Walker, took part with respect to wildlife. I thought it was fair and balanced. Accuracy and objectivity are needed if we are going to realize any goals or ambitions, or carry out our trust responsibility -- which is simply a fiduciary responsibility.
This current government has expanded on the court decisions, in a way that they wanted to, and they are paying very little attention to the actual court decisions, either in the Sparrow case or, in northern B.C., the Delgam Uukw case. There are a number of concerns out there -- and the minister has to be well aware of those -- from sportsmen, hunters and fishermen throughout British Columbia.
For example, the minister referred to the elk kill on Vancouver Island. First of all, perhaps the minister
[ Page 6413 ]
would advise me why an aboriginal individual can hunt at any time of the year. What is the purpose for that, and what is the rationale for that? What is the reasoning behind that, if conservation is an issue? A number of the animals killed were cows with calves. The minister can't tell me that is astute conservation -- not by the wildest or widest stretch of the imagination. Perhaps the minister could respond to that.
Hon. J. Cashore: For a great many years the aboriginal people carried out their hunting in the months of January and February. This is something that the ministry has allowed them to do, and had allowed them to do so during the time the hon. member himself was the minister. I would also point out that our officials can rely on data that comes to our wildlife biologists within the ministry. This is ascertained on the basis of scientific information and data. It is something that has gone on for quite some time; it's not a child of this government. It has been a process that has been ongoing. Obviously, it is a subject that is worthy of constant consideration but should be looked at in its historical context.
C. Serwa: First of all, whether the minister wants to recognize it or not, the times have changed. Water has gone under the bridge in the past 200 years. The reality is that when I was involved with the Ministry of Environment, we stopped sustenance hunting. It was not only because of the aboriginal population but also because of sustenance hunting by the non-aboriginal population. You can imagine how galling it is for a sportsman to find that someone on welfare goes and gets a sustenance permit, takes his 4-by-4 in the wintertime when the animals are yarded up in the congested winter ground, shoots a trophy buck, pays $250 to have it mounted, and is able to sell it to someone else who wants that particular trophy. It didn't make any rational sense whatsoever. There is a great deal of confiscated wild game meat available throughout the province. We have refrigeration and deep freezes at the present time. It's not necessarily what the minister calls a traditional experience.
A lot of the sportsmen that I spoke to at the B.C. Wildlife Federation indicated that if the government is so hung up on all of these traditional rights and responsibilities, perhaps the government had better start looking at how conservation was attained prior to the non-native community coming here. Conservation was attained simply by the limits of technology. Whether it was the harvesting of fish or game, it was the limits of technology. The bow and arrow was really not a very long-distance type of weapon. It didn't have the ability to reach out six or seven hundred yards like a scope-sighted rifle. Nor did they have the range to travel as they do today, with four-wheel drives on roads throughout the system. Conservation was fundamentally and primarily a product of the limits of technology, and the minister has to understand that.
Now we have refrigeration and deep freezes, though they are not available in all areas of the province. Certainly there are some remote areas where the bands live because of the food source, which was traditionally either fish or game supplies. In those particular cases there certainly would have to be exceptions made. But as I pointed out to the minister, the bulk of the native population lives in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.
The other thing is that a great deal of this is really meant for the native people's harvest and food supply. It is well known and fairly well established, however, that native hunting can be done by a non-native person offering them X number of dollars for an elk, a moose, or whatever. It's simply a financial transaction, obviously flouting the rules and regulations and their intent.
Fundamentally, what the court cases have said is that we have a fiduciary or trust responsibility. In Chief Justice McEachern's judgment the law is clear: both Canada and the province, in the exercise of their undoubted sovereignty, may exact legislation which affects Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Canada, within its jurisdiction, may legislate directly, while British Columbia's laws of general application may, in many circumstances, vitally affect Indians. I see the Ministry of Environment coming out with all sorts of interim guidelines, none of which makes rational sense. I'm certainly confident that the native communities themselves have difficulties with some of the guidelines.
The statement that the minister made with respect to the sheep kill at the feeding station in the Kootenays is that first nations people in the province of British Columbia are concerned about other natives coming into their traditional territories. I can assure you that for years and years aboriginal people from across Canada have come to the Fraser River to harvest sockeye salmon, which they've sold throughout the province. So I don't see any restriction on the part of native peoples. If we're going to make progress, we're going to have to assess realistically. We're going to have to get our heads out of the sand and understand objectively the needs, wants and aspirations of the native people, and also the rights of all British Columbians on an equal basis. Perhaps the minister would respond.
[4:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: The actions of the Ministry of Environment are in accord with the law; they seek to carry out the law. I think the hon. member will recognize that in the past year and a half that has been a very challenging situation in view of recent court decisions. It's also an issue in which the courts have recognized the obligation and duty of the Crown to respond in the most effective way possible, which we believe we have done.
The hon. member has spoken about the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and I realize that he was at the meeting I addressed. He has a right to his own interpretation, but I would classify the response I received from the federation as very hopeful, positive, cooperative and relieved. They are relieved because these guidelines have finally been brought forward. While all of us agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and that we will have to see what really transpires to be able to say how effective they have been, there was hope in the
[ Page 6414 ]
sense that at least here was something we could work on together. My sense -- it may not be the sense of the hon. member -- is that the Wildlife Federation received the announcement of government on the interim guidelines in a very positive and supportive manner.
I just want to say that I cherish the openness and responsiveness of that federation, especially in view of the fact that the theme of their recent convention related to this very issue. I appreciated the efforts they took to enable panels where native spokespersons addressed the federation. I understand that Sophie Pierre and George Watts were there along with others. I have spoken to people who were on the panel on this issue, and they indicated that it bodes well for the future. People were discovering a common ground, and I found that very encouraging.
A major portion of the annual meeting of the Steelhead Society was on this issue. One of the very positive things for this government and this province is that there are people in the first nations and in the third-party groups who are willing to sit down and work together on the basis of recognizing that there is common ground on the need for conservation. I think that out of this is going to come an even better circumstance than existed before, because we will have better data coming out of this process as these cooperative procedures are developed.
When people are coming, as the hon. member said, from outside the country and from across the country, I believe these issues are going to be tightened up. We are now going to have considerations by first nations that will indicate that they should give written permission to someone from outside their territory to exercise an aboriginal right. That means that we will be able to cooperatively address that issue in a way that it hasn't been before. That means that there's another very hopeful aspect to this. Those are my comments.
C. Serwa: I guess there were a variety of messages; I certainly didn't get the message the minister received. There's a great deal of concern in the non-native community about the direction and degree the minister and the ministry are going with respect to hunting and fishing in British Columbia. Perhaps the real tragedy is the unrealistic expectations being raised in the native community. Some sources I've heard indicate that within five years there will not be one non-native fishing guide in our northern rivers in the province.
The allocation of game. What percentage is the minister contemplating with respect to allocation of wildlife harvest? Is it in proportion to the population? Is it some significantly higher proportion? How will you regulate it? There is no control. There is virtually no enforcement with respect to this.
Regarding the sheep that was shot at the feeding station, the initial report from the native community supported the shooting of the animal, indicating that it was for sustenance as a food source. Subsequently that particular position was changed, prior to the enforcement action, where charges were laid against, I believe, two individuals involved in the shooting of that trophy bighorn.
There are prevailing realities that have to be addressed objectively and not subjectively with respect to policies. The minister has failed to indicate to me why harvesting should take place at any time of the year, and why male as well as female animals may be harvested at any time of the year. I fail to see or understand the rationale or logic of that approach.
Hon. J. Cashore: I did answer that question. I indicated to the member that the circumstance that prevails now with regard to that issue of harvesting at different times of the year prevailed when he was the minister. I indicated that there is input from wildlife biologists on that. I also indicated that all these issues should be subject to consideration and review, which is ongoing. So I have not in any way tried to diminish the value of the point the hon. member is making. But he's incorrect in saying I didn't respond.
C. Serwa: Well, I guess we'll go around in circles for a little while. I indicated to the minister, and he failed to pay attention to it, that sustenance hunting was stopped. That was the end of sustenance hunting when I was involved in the Ministry of Environment. So the harvesting at any time of the year, if it in fact occurred, was poaching. I recognize that 50 percent of the game taken in the province is poached. If we allow the minister that type of latitude, perhaps he is right. But intentionally there was no will to move in that particular direction; I believe it is inappropriate. Perhaps the minister, with further information, will again respond to that.
Hon. J. Cashore: The sustenance season never stopped. The ministry, which was your ministry at the time, stopped giving out sustenance permits, but the season did not stop.
C. Serwa: I won't belabour that one. I'll just indicate once more that the universal application of laws with respect to fish and wildlife -- certainly the impression and opinion of myself and the individuals I've talked to -- is the desired arena we should have. The universal application of our fish and wildlife regulation and legislation is the desired commodity. Does the minister foresee a universal application? Or are we going to treat two different classes of British Columbians differently from now on in the eyes of the law?
Hon. J. Cashore: We will carry out our fiduciary obligation, which is an obligation that has been made clear to us by the courts -- which I am sure this hon. member would recognize is something we should take very seriously.
C. Serwa: I would like to continue this conversation, but in deference to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I will sit down and let him continue.
G. Wilson: I thank the member for Okanagan West for giving me this opportunity. I actually came in to talk
[ Page 6415 ]
about GIS mapping, but this is a much more exciting topic, and I do have questions on it. As we are on it, maybe we could explore it.
I notice within vote 33 that it is suggested that this ministry has a chargeback provision whereby it can essentially get moneys charged back off the federal government with respect to enforcement questions around fisheries maintenance or other wildlife management questions with respect to aboriginal peoples. I wonder if the minister might tell me what those provisions are. How much money are we looking at in each year, and how would those dollars be tied into enforcement around the new aboriginal fisheries strategy?
Hon. J. Cashore: We don't have that information with us, so we'll have to get back to the hon. member.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might tell us to what extent this ministry is involved, or has been involved, with the creation and administration of the aboriginal fisheries strategy. To what extent does the training for the aboriginal fisheries inspection process that is going on now with respect to the enforcers -- particularly in the Fraser River area -- involve the provincial Ministry of Environment, recognizing that this is primarily the obligation of the lead agency, which is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?
Hon. J. Cashore: We have very little involvement. Our involvement is confined to where it impacts on the steelhead. There has been some involvement in that aspect, but it's very little. As the hon. member says, it's a federal responsibility.
G. Wilson: In light of that answer on the question of fisheries, with respect to the maintenance and protection of wildlife and following up on some of the questions that have been put forward by the member for Okanagan West, I wonder if the minister can tell us to what extent there has been involvement with respect to the negotiations on strategies for the protection of wildlife, given that conservation is the primary concern? I believe that virtually every legal ruling that has come forward has recognized the need for conservation. To what extent is this ministry actively involved now in negotiations with the federal authorities, and with provincial aboriginal authority where it exists, with respect to the protection and preservation not only of wildlife but, more importantly, of the wildlife habitat that is currently under potential land claim?
Hon. J. Cashore: The federal involvement is in the area of endangered species. Habitat is the responsibility of the province.
G. Wilson: I'm aware of that. My question -- perhaps I didn't word it very carefully -- was with respect to habitat, which is indeed a provincial jurisdiction. Can the minister tell us to what extent there is ongoing negotiation, particularly in light of the fact that we had tabled in the Legislature today a new act which will allow for a treaty commission to commence negotiation with respect to land claims? To what extent is the Ministry of Environment directly involved in the protection and preservation of habitat where species that are endangered -- or even those that are not endangered -- are likely to be affected by the upcoming result on jurisdiction over those lands?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're involved with regard to the protection of and responsibility for habitat throughout the province. Where it involves the question of first nations, that is an issue that is still to be determined through other procedures.
With regard to the question about consultation with federal authorities, I think I can only give a very general answer. That kind of consultation would take place where there is a mutual interest. As I said before with issues relating to endangered species, the feds are also responsible for migratory birds. We have interests with regard to migratory birds where it comes to such things as protecting wetlands, wildlife management areas and that sort of interface. There are various situations where we do interact with the federal authorities, but it's very difficult to quantify specifically to what extent. I would have to try to answer that by saying it's consultation on a kind of site-specific basis where there is an active and ongoing issue that we are addressing together.
[4:30]
G. Wilson: If I understand the minister correctly, then, he is saying that this ministry is largely not involved with habitat management or with the ongoing procedures for aboriginal land claim and negotiation; and that this is largely being handled through some other process, presumably with the federal government. I wonder if the minister might elaborate a bit more with respect to (c)(vii) in vote 33 in the estimates, where it suggests that this ministry is responsible for the "development of policy and procedure on aboriginal issues related to resource management and environmental protection -- contributions are provided to first nations and other aboriginal organizations for program-related work." What specifically is this ministry doing with respect to the development of that policy? What kinds of contributions is this ministry making? What are the guidelines around which those contributions would be undertaken? To what extent is that going to be a contributing factor in any final resolution on questions that are currently under dispute?
Hon. J. Cashore: There will be some issues ongoing under the joint stewardship process that involve cross-cultural training. It's a continuation of ministry training to enhance cultural understanding and staff awareness of first nations issues. The Interior Indian Fisheries Commission has worked towards developing a memorandum of understanding. There's Treaty 8, from the Peace River country, which enables a liaison officer in that area to work on those related issues. There's the joint stewardship agreement with the Cowichan band, which we signed well over a year ago, and we're now involved in the second year of carrying
[ Page 6416 ]
the agreement out. There's the issue, which has been the focus of much of the discussion here today, of the interim guidelines on aboriginal use of fish and wildlife. There's the Xax'lip joint stewardship agreement, and support for the implementation of the agreement -- I'd have to get help on locating where that is in the province.
J. Tyabji: It's the Fountain Indian band.
Hon. J. Cashore: There's one here on which I'll have to find out what these initials stand for. There's the Skeena steelhead selective harvest project, cost-shared with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Skeena fisheries commission, which has involved some work on the Skeena. Those are some of the projects.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we can come back to this interior fisheries commission or strategy, if the minister might elaborate a little more on what is involved with this interior fisheries commission. To what extent is that interior fisheries commission involved in upstream management on salmon stock, or is it at all, or is it strictly related to freshwater fishery?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is supported by the Fraser basin management program -- which has an involvement in this, too -- and it also involves salmon stock, so there's a federal input on that. As you know, the Fraser basin commission has input from the federal, provincial and municipal levels, as well as from first nations.
G. Wilson: So the involvement of this ministry is one of administration, or of policy development for protection or habitat maintenance? What exactly is it that the Ministry of Environment does provincially in this commission?
Hon. J. Cashore: It works toward developing a memorandum of understanding that will enable us to mutually build policies that are sustainable and that recognize the various complexities of the parties involved in that region.
G. Wilson: I wonder if we could just explore for a moment this memorandum of understanding. Is it the understanding of the minister that what is being negotiated here is an agreement between obviously legally defined entities? Clearly the federal government has a role to play, and we can see what its role would be statutorily. Clearly the provincial government has a statutory obligation with respect to this ministry and to other ministries that would have a role. What statutory obligation and authority does this minister see the aboriginal bands having with respect to the negotiation? What binding authority will they have in any agreement they sign?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a memorandum of understanding. It's an attempt to work out ways that we can interact together and bring a mutuality to that process. In terms of "legally binding," I would think that the primary purpose here is to build the kind of common purpose and will that enable this to work in everybody's interest. I think that their main reason for participating and following through on agreements is that it would be in their interest to do so.
G. Wilson: I understand that obviously it's in the best interests of all people to try to come together and to work towards some kind of common and harmonious goal -- or a goal that would provide certain harmony. What I'm trying to get at here is the definition of -- or a clearer distinction between -- where jurisdictions begin and end as between this ministry and other participants in this memorandum of understanding, or an international fisheries commission. Recognizing that this ministry has a role to play in the sport fishing industry in this province, and recognizing that agreements have been made in the past with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and aboriginal communities -- particularly in light of the major agreement, obviously the Haida Gwaii -- what role does this minister feel the Ministry of Environment has provincially with respect to concerns for habitat and species protection in any interim agreement that may be made, or memorandum of understanding? Are we a figure that has authority and weight, or are we simply a contributor to a process that is largely a negotiation between three levels of government? If that's true, what authority does that "third level of government" have, given that it has no statutory authority either federally or provincially, given the referendum results in this country last year?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is the responsibility of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to carry out the mandate of that ministry, and clearly the bottom line is conservation. Therefore our responsibility is to ensure the conservation of the resource. Insofar as a memorandum of understanding is in place, I think that the question of in what way a memorandum of understanding is legally binding would have to be put to a legal authority.
We are seeking to develop a modus operandi that enables us to address a situation that needs to be addressed in the first instance. Again, if it doesn't work, we will be judged on that. We are seeking the very best way we can of building on the common interest and the common ground to enable it to work. You know, we can go on for a long time about these questions of legal responsibility, and that's the type of question that ends up being a real boon for a lot of people in the legal profession. My responsibility in this as the minister is to ensure the conservation of the resource and, in light of recent court decisions and the current socioeconomic context, to do the very best we can to ensure that the resource is protected. That is our responsibility.
G. Wilson: Without getting into a long philosophical discourse on this question, which one could certainly do, this minister is a legal authority. His ministry is a legal authority, and the government of the province of British Columbia is a legal authority that has the right to pass laws and enforce them. Given that you are a legal authority and have the right to pass laws with respect to conservation, to what extent is the
[ Page 6417 ]
ministry prepared to pass legislation that will be applied equally to all people in this province -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal? And to what extent is the ministry prepared to put in place enforcement authority that will make sure those laws are enforced?
The Chair: Hon. minister, that sounds awfully close to future policy issues. Do you want to take that into account?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair, it is a future policy question. But I have a couple things I want to say. It should be pointed out that the aboriginal people have a legal right to the use of fish under our control for sustenance purposes; that has been pointed out by the courts. So that answers part of the question with regard to legal right and the feds' responsibility for salmon. So it is with regard to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. As for other non-tidal fish -- steelhead and trout -- we have the responsibility there.
It is our purpose through such a memorandum of understanding to find a way to ensure that we have a process that works and, through that instrument, that we enable the effective administration of our commitment to protect the resource. We must seek to do that by using all the energy and wisdom that can be brought to it, by making use of people in the ministry with expertise in wildlife biology and so forth. No one can give an ironclad guarantee that any process that's put in place is going to be 100 percent successful. But one thing that must be successful is the conservation of the resource; that is our responsibility. We have placed ourselves in a position where we recognize that we have that responsibility, and we are seeking to fulfil that responsibility in the best way we can. The memorandum of understanding is a means to assist us in doing that.
G. Wilson: I have a couple of other questions along this line. As I said, I came in here fully expecting to talk about GIS mapping, which is another issue that needs to be discussed.
With respect to the maintenance and protection of the resource, which the minister has said he has a mandate to look after, and without wishing to press on the point, I think jurisdiction is going to be seen to be a key legal issue in this province, one way or the other. No matter what one's heritage, one can't simply, within the context of a democracy such as this, define oneself as a legally binding entity with authority to make and pass laws and have jurisdiction, unless that's seen to be accepted within the general mode of federal and provincial government. I think that hasn't been done, although I think it's been promised. And that's unfortunate, because I don't think that promise holds the weight of most of the people who determine and decide, the electorate.
[4:45]
Having said that, there is a second part to this conservation question: habitat protection. I wonder how aggressive the ministry is going to become, with the interior fishery in particular, with respect to the maintenance and protection of the habitat -- and I'm speaking of the river and water system habitat for fishery -- in light of the Nechako question, for example, which has a very strong aboriginal component. There is a food dependency with respect to salmon which we recognize by the Sparrow ruling and others, and one could argue the same sustenance argument with respect to the Nechako. How aggressive is the minister going to be on making sure that habitat protection occurs with respect to the interior fishery, in light of the development proposals now being considered -- and in some cases well underway -- on some of the interior rivers?
Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps the hon. member can clarify if he's referring to the oft-reported scheme to divert the North Thompson, as a case in point. Is that one of the issues the hon. member is referring to?
G. Wilson: I'm talking about the Nechako River, actually.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please, just so we get that straight for Hansard.
Hon. J. Cashore: You did mention the Nechako, but are you also referring to that other issue of the potential interbasin transfer?
G. Wilson: Well, if you've got an update -- through you, hon. Chair.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the Nechako, I think it's very clear what the position of the government is. We have received an opinion from Murray Rankin, contained within a report, that indicates the Kemano completion project is legally binding. However, many aspects to the way in which Kemano 2 came about and was decided are cause for concern. Also, there are questions that have to do with the mitigation of impacts on people who live along the Nechako River. Therefore the B.C. Utilities Commission is carrying out an environmental review. But the government has made it very clear that we accept the advice that the KCP is legally binding. Given that this is historical fact, and the government has a responsibility to carry out a legal requirement, there is a mitigation factor when it relates to the fisheries resource -- both in the area of the Nechako and where there may be conversation about potential impacts on the Fraser, to which it is a tributary.
With regard to the question of interbasin transfers, that issue is going to be addressed through a discussion paper process leading towards comprehensive water legislation. Again, that's future policy, but that paper is to come out soon, leading to the development of that. And that will involve a lot of public input. I have stated very clearly that I am opposed to that concept of interbasin transfer. My own position, which I've stated many times, is that I don't support water leaving the province unless it's in a value-added form such as a bottled product. However, in fairness, I have to see the process run its course and see the information that comes in through that public process.
I will say that an overhaul of the water legislation in the province is certainly long overdue. I believe, hon. member, that we need legislation that will protect water, not only as a property right but also with regard
[ Page 6418 ]
to issues of quality relating to human beings and human health -- and also with regard to biodiversity. As many people have said, it doesn't seem that fish have rights. I think we have to recognize that fish are a resource that is a very important part of biodiversity and of a great many considerations for the people who inhabit this land. So we have a lot of work to do with regard to water legislation and regulation within this province.
G. Wilson: I understand from the critic that water is going to be dealt with as a separate issue, so I won't pursue that particular line. I just want to pick up a clarification -- coming back to the aboriginal question -- with respect to jurisdiction of upland grazing and grazing habitat. That's currently under this ministry; both Environment and Crown land jurisdictions are in the one ministry now where those two jurisdictions overlap. I'm used to thinking of them in two. I wonder if the minister might elaborate, given that the ranchers in B.C. are very concerned that there seems to be an authority provided with respect to jurisdiction over land under dispute, that will or may -- let me just say "may" and not "will" -- preclude the use of Crown lands that have been traditional grazing lands from access to ranchers as a result of either pending or future claim. I wonder if the minister could tell us who he believes has jurisdiction over that Crown land with respect to the licensing authority. Does the minister believe that it is in the interests of the people of British Columbia to relinquish that claim, or that title?
Hon. J. Cashore: Some of it is the responsibility of the Minister of Forests, and some of it is the responsibility of Crown lands, where it's not forest land. With regard to where I think this is leading and what happens given the treaty-making process, that is something I can't answer at this time. That will be subject to the treaty-making process.
G. Wilson: I'm aware of the distinction between the forest land and land under Crown lands; I was referring specifically to Crown land. I don't want to jump into this other area, because there is an area that I think needs to be canvassed independently of this particular question. But with respect to the Crown land and the grazing rights to Crown land, there is a grave fear that this year lands normally provided for upland grazing will be withheld pending some resolution of the question on jurisdiction. I wonder if the minister might want to give us his opinion with respect to water diversion. He's given what I assume is his opinion and not that of the government, although maybe it is shared by the government. I applaud the minister for joining me in thinking that if we ship our water south, it should be in a bottle of Canadian beer or a jug of Canadian wine. This particular jurisdictional question is an important one. A lot of ranchers in B.C. are concerned that they're not going to get access to lands they've traditionally had because they'll be withheld pending resolution on aboriginal land claims.
Hon. J. Cashore: As far as I know, outside of the Nisga'a land claims area, we're not holding back any type of application. The ADM of Lands is not here at the present time, and he could update me on that. But there's a potential for holding back in the area of the Nisga'a land claim negotiations, because that is the only one that is ongoing. We could get further information on that. I don't have the data with regard to what land is held back in that treaty area.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister or the minister's staff might note, for future discussion when the ADM is here, that there are at least three other areas of concern to me. One is the Kispiox Valley, another is the South Peace region and the other is the Prince George region. Those three areas could be looked at, because it's my understanding that in all those areas there are lands that are currently being withheld. With that, I'll yield.
J. Tyabji: Just following up on the discussion by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and going back to yesterday's discussion, in large part, the things we were discussing with regard to jurisdiction.... Today we were talking about habitat, but yesterday we were talking about the land use strategy that's coming through the protected-areas strategy and the CORE process. I think the underlying question that hasn't really been answered is with regard to jurisdiction.
When the Ministry of Environment is dealing with the first nations, in what capacity are the current negotiations, memorandums of understanding or just straight dialogues taking place? To give a concrete example -- perhaps this would be of assistance to the minister in giving us the picture of his negotiations -- when this minister's staff or the minister sits down and talks to, for example, a first nations chief, are they talking to someone who they see and/or deal with in a legislative ability as someone akin to a mayor, a premier or a prime minister? The reason I'm asking that is that it might get us closer to the answer to the questions we were dealing with yesterday on jurisdiction as it pertains to the referendum package.
Hon. J. Cashore: It depends on the situation. There are a number of different types of interactions taking place, so I think we have to say that we are interacting with people who are members of first nations and who are very often representative of their elected position within the first nation. They could be representatives of someone who is recognized as an elder. So it would have to relate to specific situations.
J. Tyabji: Are there some specific situations where the ministry, in terms of legal structuring as a result of the negotiations, is dealing with the first nations chiefs in the capacity of a premier or a prime minister? Or are they dealing with the chiefs solely in a capacity akin to a mayor, in terms of legislative jurisdiction?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
[ Page 6419 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Our involvement with first nations is subject to the legislation for which we are responsible. There's a certain factor out there, as we carry out our legislation, which involves first nations. So we relate to those people in their elected or appointed capacity; we don't define people as a mayor or anybody else. We accept their definition of who they are. If they say, "I am the chief councillor of such and such band," we take that at face value. If they say, "I am the person who's in a certain position within a tribal council," we take them at their word. We interact with these people on the basis of who that body appoints.
I'll try to come up with an example. With regard to the decision to create a class A park, it's very important that there be consultations with the representatives of the first nations and with the tribal council in a particular area. So we would interact with those people on the basis of their role within their society.
J. Tyabji: Is the Minister of Environment suggesting that if an aboriginal chief came to him and said, "I am a chief, and I'm independent of federal-provincial laws," that would be the face value by which the Ministry of Environment would ask...? To put that in the context of the previous questions, when I say akin to a mayor, a premier or a prime minister, I'm talking about the statutes that govern those various bodies.
In terms of negotiations for legal arrangements with the bands, are they being dealt with as they represent themselves, which means that the federal and provincial statutes are arbitrary? Or are they de facto part and parcel of the federal and provincial laws that govern everyone else, in terms of them being an administrative body? I know that you can't have a full parallel, but which laws are they are subject to and which are they exempt from, from this ministry's perspective?
[5:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, we deal with first nations' people in the context of federal and provincial law, which recognizes that there are some considerations within federal law relating to the federal Indian Act. Other emerging considerations recognize that a lot of change is taking place. There is a need for openness and understanding and all those things as we are involved in those consultations, but it's in the context of federal and provincial law.
The Chair: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member, the Chair cautions all hon. members that the proper subject matter for estimates debate is the ministerial responsibility for administrative matters that fall under the ministry. This line of questioning is tangentially close to some areas affected by the minister, but it is beginning to stray into areas not related. The Chair would appreciate it if every effort is made to link the line of questioning, so that it is clearly in order.
J. Tyabji: Just to be more specific, what we're talking about is fisheries, resource management and negotiations with the Minister of Environment as they relate to aboriginal issues.
The minister just finished talking about the emerging situation with the aboriginal people, and that is where we have some concerns. There doesn't seem to be a concrete plan in place. That refers back to some of the discussion earlier, where federal or provincial laws that are not recognized by the aboriginal peoples as being consistent with their own traditions, in some cases, are not being enforced. The minister is aware of the discussion we had earlier today.
What I'm asking is: on what basis is the ministry deciding not to pursue...? For example, in issues of resource management, fisheries, habitat conservation or wildlife management, where federal and provincial laws are not being observed, the ministry is not pursuing that. Is that because the ministry has adopted a policy on aboriginal issues that states that there is an exemption from provincial and federal statutes? That's where the question comes from. Are they akin to a mayor, a premier or a prime minister? What's going on, and what is being communicated to the aboriginal people? That goes back to the comment I made yesterday that if expectations are being raised that that will be acceptable to the general public, then I have serious concerns, because I don't think it will be.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like the hon. member to state a specific instance that supports her contention that a law is being ignored. If she could identify the location and state the specifics of the case that our ministry is purported to ignore, then we will respond with an answer either immediately or upon gathering information that addresses the specificity of that instance.
W. Hurd: I wonder if I could draw the attention of the minister to an interdepartmental correspondence from January 13, 1992, regarding native sustenance hunting. It indicates that field personnel are reporting that in increasing numbers native persons are requesting information on whether they're allowed to hunt wildlife out of season. The apparent lack of policy in this area is a matter of concern, as it would appear that natives are not being given the same information across the province. Can the minister advise the committee how this problem, which was clearly identified last year by inspectors in the field, is being addressed in the current set of estimates?
Hon. J. Cashore: The way to get at this is to again refer to the guidelines we have released. The guidelines recognize that we have some responsibilities to first nations people. We should also point out that there is an upcoming consultation with regard to these guidelines, because we seek to make them permanent in January.
W. Hurd: One assumes that the departmental guidelines that were spelled out in 1992 are still used to guide the officers in the field. Or are we in a situation where the new guidelines are being anticipated when it comes to enforcement of aboriginal hunting and fishing activities?
[ Page 6420 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: They are superseded by the 1993 interim guidelines.
W. Hurd: Maybe I can clarify a couple of points that were made in the January 13 ministry approach and ask whether or not these guidelines still apply. "Any native person inquiring about access to wildlife during a closed season should be advised that they may hunt for and take wildlife outside of the normal hunting season provided the hunting is carried out on unoccupied Crown land or on land to which they have been allowed access by the owner or lessor." Can the minister give us an idea of whether that guideline is still used to govern activity? When we're talking about unoccupied Crown land, what percentage of a land base or how many hectares are we potentially dealing with?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a definition in the 1993 guidelines as to what unoccupied Crown land is. I repeat that the process that is operative at the present time is the 1993 guidelines.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to pursue the issue of aboriginal hunting and particularly the ministry's policies on enforcement. We're all aware of a number of issues around British Columbia. The minister asked a little earlier for specifics. We know that there were serious concerns about elk hunting in the Princeton area and on Vancouver Island. There were concerns about bison hunting in the part of the province that I represent. I was pleased with the ministry's decision to lay charges in the Creston-Salmo ram-shooting incident.
I am concerned about the interpretation that the ministry takes, however, and about the enforcement that is in place. To perhaps get started along that track, I wonder whether the minister could tell us roughly how many other charges have been laid against aboriginal hunters during the last fiscal year -- or calendar year, or whatever measure you like.
Hon. J. Cashore: We'll have to find that out. Officials advise me that, off the top of the head, we can think of three or four, but there could very well be more than that. We will get that figure, but it is at least four.
J. Weisgerber: If the numbers are countable on one's hands or toes, it is fair to say that the ministry has a policy of avoiding prosecution and charges. I wonder whether the minister would then agree with the premise that, in the interest of wildlife management in British Columbia, there needs to be one organization that has jurisdiction and enforcement authority over wildlife harvesting. The point I am getting at is that I'm very much concerned with a fractured kind of management system that would see anything other than a central enforcement regime in place. Is the minister committed to seeing his ministry as the enforcing agency for wildlife hunting and fishing -- wildlife harvesting opportunities -- by all British Columbians?
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I would like to point out that the hon. member's colleague from Okanagan West posed many of these questions earlier, so we have canvassed much of this.
With regard to the question about prosecution and laying charges, the hon. member is aware that prosecution falls under the Attorney General ministry. The laying of charges falls under the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. There is not a policy of avoiding anything, but I think the hon. member recognizes that we have gone through a period of adjustment in the wake of significant court decisions -- especially the Delgam Uukw decision, which recognizes that the province has a fiduciary responsibility with regard to sustenance hunting and traditional uses. So that means that we've been dealing with a situation where it behooves us to address the situation as effectively as we possibly can. In a way that brings a sense of confidence -- which I hear requested in the member's question -- that this issue is being addressed appropriately.
I did state earlier that, while I realize there is a great deal of concern among third parties -- among Wildlife Federation members, for instance -- I'm very encouraged by the responsive, cooperative and responsible way they have received the interim guidelines. My sense is that the body politic out there really wants to see it work; they want to see an effective enforcement that works. I have recognized that our conservation officers have been in a very awkward position during this past year. Now the interim guidelines are going to facilitate a process whereby we are consulting very carefully with first nations and third parties to make sure that we come up with a common-ground approach that enables us to recognize the fundamental responsibility that this government has: the conservation of the resource. That is the absolute clear responsibility.
With regard to the question about a central enforcement agency, that is clearly within the conservation service of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, plus some attendant aspects of this ministry. I couldn't agree more with the member. We do have that responsibility. Conservation is the bottom line. We are into a new era, and we need some very effective consultation. As I said before, I think that this is going to be a win-win situation, because it's going to mean that agreements with the bands and third parties will result in much better enforcement, much better cooperation and much better inventory work being done.
The last point -- again, I made this point before -- is that we have a lot of work to do, so that in January and beyond we can come up with a set of permanent guidelines that will serve the province for the future.
J. Weisgerber: I'll restrict my comments to enforcement and try not to offend anybody with the prosecution side of the argument. Clearly the Ministry of Environment, through the wildlife service and the conservation officers, has an enforcement responsibility. What I'm trying to find out from the minister is whether or not he agrees that in order to manage the wildlife resource for conservation and for the use of
[ Page 6421 ]
British Columbians generally -- aboriginal people and others -- there needs to be one central management authority, and, whether or not he sees that as his ministry, because clearly the Ministry of Environment has had that role for many years in British Columbia.
[5:15]
I see agendas and proposals. I see tax being taken that would fracture the management of the resource and would see different management authorities in different areas of the province that would affect different harvesters of the resource. I don't believe you can manage the wildlife resource in British Columbia with that kind of regime. So I'm trying to find out from the minister whether or not he shares my concern for the wildlife resource in that respect, and whether or not he is committed to maintaining that kind of provincial jurisdiction over something that is clearly a provincial resource.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, the Ministry of Environment is that single authority whose responsibility is to ensure the conservation of the resource. But in order to achieve that effectively and be cognizant of the law of the land, there will be partnerships. That partnership involves first nations and third parties, but there is one central authority. As I said earlier, there is a need to have, as much as is possible, a process that recognizes the best biological data and inventory in ascertaining the number of animals that can be taken in a certain location, and which then uses an effective consultation process with first nations and third parties to ensure fair allocation.
J. Weisgerber: That was one of the points I wanted to cover. I think it's clear that the ministry's responsibilities and obligations go beyond conservation and into the management and allocation of the wildlife resource among competing users. I'm also looking for a sense of the direction that the minister is prepared to take on that issue, and how strong a stand. How definitive is the minister prepared to be on the issue of management beyond conservation of a resource that most British Columbians consider as part of their natural heritage? It's an issue that troubles a great number of people, and it's a sensitive one.
I'm not trying to paint you into a corner on this thing. I'm trying to get a sense of the management plan you have for a resource that's fragile, and which unfortunately isn't something one can make too many mistakes with. What kinds of allocations does the minister see beyond conservation? There is a school of thought that says the first responsibility is conservation. Beyond that, aboriginal sustenance prevails. If there is any resource available beyond a need for conservation, it can then be allocated. I don't know whether the minister subscribes to that theory. What are his thoughts about management of the resource in that kind of environment?
Hon. J. Cashore: I have covered this many times today, but the bottom line is conservation. I would interpret the mandate of conservation broadly. The hon. member is making very valid points about the responsibility we have. In the final analysis, we will be judged on how well we carry out our mandate, recognizing that it is being done in the midst of very challenging circumstances.
The effective term here is consultation. It is through consultation with first nations and third parties that we are going to achieve the goal of lowering the volatility of the situation. In order to do that effectively, we need to recognize that there is a common ground that involves the government, first nations and third parties, because in essence the responsible people in those entities have a vested interest in the protection of the resource. It is through that kind of consultation and cooperation that we are going to walk hand in hand and achieve this. But when I say "to walk hand in hand," let's not make any mistake. The Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks has the responsibility for the conservation of the resource, and obviously that mandate has to be interpreted in a broad sense. The hon. member says "after and beyond conservation." I think we have to recognize that the word "conservation" is a very encompassing and far-reaching concept.
J. Weisgerber: I'm trying to get a sense of where we're going. The minister says that consultation is important, and clearly it is. Consultation is important with aboriginal groups and with so-called third parties. In this case the third parties represent a broad spectrum of British Columbians -- more than simply the people who belong to the B.C. Wildlife Federation or any other organization. I apologize if I'm covering ground that you've been over before, but I think it's important for those people to look to their government for a sense of direction. They shouldn't have to rely on organizations, clubs or other groups to send that information out.
I also don't want to fall into the trap of raising only the points of which I am critical. I was encouraged by the undertaking on elk allocations here on the Island, where there were identified numbers available for aboriginal hunters and a number of hunts available for guides and outfitters -- not very many -- and also, on a limited entry basis, for other users of the resource. Is that kind of direction in allocation and management something we can expect to see more of in the next little while?
Hon. J. Cashore: It has to be worked out very carefully, using that kind of approach. It has to recognize the demographics, because there are some situations where the balance in the first nations population vis-�-vis the non-first nations population is different. So in terms of these allocation aspects, there are certain socioeconomic aspects that need to be taken into consideration.
We also have to recognize that even though we have this court decision that recognizes the fiduciary responsibility, coming up with those first nations allocations must be done on a reasonable level. I don't think there could be any justification for that not being done on a reasonable level. "Reasonable" means it has to be cognizant of the needs of all British Columbians.
[ Page 6422 ]
J. Weisgerber: I would like to spend some time exploring the court cases, but given the hour, I'm not going to embark on that today.
Let me say, though, that if you accept the model on Vancouver Island as being a good one, it then seems to me that the matter of enforcement becomes a key question that logically follows that. If you were going to allocate a number of licences to the aboriginal community in the area and a number to others, in my opinion that will work only if your ministry manages and enforces the harvesting done by all the groups. I don't think it's reasonable to say to the guides and outfitters: "We're going to give you three licences, and we're going to let you manage how you issue licences, how you harvest them, whether you transfer them from one to the other and who uses the licences." Nor is it reasonable to say to the folks who live in a neighbouring community: "We're going to give you a block of licences and let some organization there manage them." If you agree with me that that's not a reasonable approach for those two, I would argue that to do the same with the local aboriginal community doesn't make any more sense from a management perspective. I'm trying to understand whether or not the ministry is prepared to ensure that those licences are identified, that the harvesting is recorded and that at the end of the day you're satisfied that all the licences were dealt with in an equitable way, even though they may have been distributed on a preferential basis. Once that decision is made, can users of the resource -- not only harvesters, but people who are interested in viewing wildlife and all the rest of it -- have a sense of confidence that the ministry is ensuring that those allocations and the harvesting of them are being enforced by some central agency?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I have to answer that question: yes, to the greatest extent of our ability. As I've said before, I'd be quite happy to have more conservation officers, but we will enforce the law to the greatest extent of our ability with regard to conservation of the resource.
When it comes to the allocation questions, there are considerations that we have to be involved in, pursuant to the interim management guidelines. We welcome your input into that, because that is going to be very significant. The dialogue that takes place on that in the next few months is going to be basic to what we come forward with in January for the permanent guidelines.
So with regard to this kind of question, some of that input will come in during that process. But we have to recognize that there's a very complex issue here. Some first nations are at a place in their work in this regard that is different than in other parts of the province. In my understanding with regard to Vancouver Island, there was actually an allocation of a certain number of animals to a first nations entity. That is part of an active negotiation that is done in good faith and without prejudice, but it is going to require me to reiterate that we are going to enforce that in the interests of maintaining the conservation of the resource.
The Chair: Without intending to interrupt debate, the Chair would remind the hon. members that we are within a few minutes of the customary motion required under the sessional orders.
[5:30]
J. Weisgerber: It's always awkward to finish in mid-sentence, so I'll try to wind up rather quickly.
It seems to me that the ministry and other ministries around the country have over the last 100 years or so developed some pretty sophisticated processes around licences, the recording of harvests, the regulations for harvesters to carry licences and record slaughter when it happens and all of those things. But I have a sense from people in that area of interest that they don't see aboriginal hunters going out with the same kinds of constraints that they might have as licence holders.
Can you give me any sense of how you're going to go about managing those allocations, once you've made the decision? I want to applaud you again for having made the decision to make specific allocations. I just want to make sure now that even though those allocations may not be equitable in everybody's mind, or there may be room for argument about who got how many, the next logical step is to have a process of enforcement in place that will ensure that those targets are met not exceeded -- and if they are exceeded, that there are opportunities to identify it and to lay charges.
Hon. J. Cashore: To the greatest extent possible, we are going to be able to enhance our ability to have up-to-date records with regard to the number of animals taken by first nations and by other parties because of the essence of the cooperative approach to this in enforcing our responsibility with regard to conservation.
With regard to the allocation, we work out a number. We give the first nation permits for that number. Permittees who hunt have to have a permit from us, and if they don't, we charge them. That's basically the process with regard to how that permitting process works.
With regard to the allocation and the data that comes through the licensing process, we are going to have much more success in getting that data from the first nations than has been the case heretofore.
With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:33 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]