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)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 6
[ Page 6423 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my honour to recognize three officials from the Slovak Republic who are visiting with us today. In the gallery are His Excellency Anton Hykisch, Ambassador of the Slovak Republic, accompanied by Maros Sefcovic, deputy head of the mission and second secretary, and Igor Bacolak, second secretary for cultural and consular affairs. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.
Hon. L. Boone: Every year a group of young people serves this province as tour guides, and they do a good job of promoting us with visitors. I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the 1993 summer staff tour guides: John Kay, Joel Freedman, Gerard Sasges, Linda Bauld, Sonja Reid and Richard Gelder. Would the House please welcome these young people.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would ask the House to help me make welcome 78 grade 7 students from Peterson Road Elementary School in Fort Langley who are touring the precincts along with their chaperons -- adults, parents and teachers. Would the House please make them welcome.
E. Barnes: This is a special day for me. I would like to ask the House to join me in making a very special person welcome. Her name is Doreen Plouffe and she is currently a resident of Sidney. I haven't seen Doreen for 30 years. The last time I saw her she was 12 years of age and attending one of my youth programs at Gordon Neighborhood House in the West End. She told me a story that has made my day. I'm not going to give you the details of the story.
Interjections.
E. Barnes: I appreciate the opportunity that hon. members are allowing me, but I believe that if I were to set a precedent today, I would have to live with it in the future. So I'm going to be guarded in what I have to say.
I just want to say that at 12 years of age she was a very shy, withdrawn youngster who was standing on the side as I was conducting one of our activities for youth. I noticed her, went over to her and asked: "Why are you isolating yourself? Why don't you join the crowd?" I'm not going to go into what she said. But believe me, what she said to me was profoundly gratifying for me, because I've always believed that what you say to people can be very meaningful, and sometimes you don't know it.
She came here after writing me a letter in February telling me that she was on the Island and that she has never forgotten me. I invited her to come in and I was going to spring for lunch -- and you can appreciate what that took for me to do that. We sat there for well over an hour, and she gave me a recount of what has happened. She has had an excellent life for herself as a social worker and has gone on to do considerable rehabilitative work with drug abusers, substance abusers, etc. She's happily married and has two beautiful adult children.
She has come today to tell me thanks, and she says: "More people should say thanks to people who have made a difference in their lives." So if the hon. members would please join me in making Doreen Plouffe welcome, I would be most appreciative. This is a very special day for me, believe me.
Hon. A. Petter: I can't possibly top that, but it is a special day....
The Speaker: Please don't try, hon. member.
Hon. A. Petter: I wouldn't even try.
It is a special day for someone else. It's come to my attention that Anissa Rimer, who is a transcriber for Hansard, is celebrating her twenty-first birthday today. I thought the House would like to join me in wishing her a very happy birthday.
WASTE MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. J. Cashore: This bill amends the Waste Management Act to provide for improved regulation and cleanup of contaminated sites. This bill augments the Waste Management Act to provide a modern and comprehensive framework for administering contaminated sites. This legislation represents the most comprehensive handling of this issue in Canada and will establish a well-defined process for the remediation of contaminated sites. The proposed amendments will maintain the principle of polluter-pay for such sites.
To the greatest extent possible, they will ensure that persons or governments not responsible do not bear the costs and liability associated with remediation of these sites. Rules and principles are established which define responsible persons, provide exemptions under specific conditions and govern liability. Federal and provincial environment ministers endorse the polluter-pay principle, and recently agreed upon and endorsed a series of recommendations on policies proposed in this bill with respect to liability for and cleanup of contaminated sites.
Various provisions for orderly management of such sites are introduced. The bill provides for the identification of sites, establishes an orderly process for their assessment and cleanup, establishes a site registry, and delegates certain administrative functions to municipalities or other ministries by mutual agreement. Specific provisions are made for consistency of standards and for controlled relocation of soils. Authority is provided
[ Page 6424 ]
for cleanup action by government at priority sites, with cost recovery from responsible parties.
These amendments are the result of extensive discussion with a wide range of groups. The issues addressed by this bill are of concern to all provincial jurisdictions, and have been the subject of considerable deliberation by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. These amendments reflect this government's commitment to the introduction of a systematic and fair process to manage the large numbers of contaminated sites, and will enable their cleanup and development in an orderly manner.
Bill 26 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.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill contains minor amendments to 11 statutes....
An Hon. Member: Housekeeping.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In previous parliaments people used the term "housekeeping." I choose to use the term "minor." It usually alerts the opposition to the fact that there may be a sleeper in the bill. Please let me know if there is one.
The 11 statutes that we're dealing with here are: Commercial Transport Act; Court Order Interest Act; Creditor Assistance Act; Drainage, Ditch and Dyke Act; Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act; Land Surveyors Act; Land Title Act; Liquor Distribution Act; Ombudsman Act; Personal Property Security Act; and Railway Act.
Bill 27 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.
[2:15]
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 13 proposes a number of amendments to the British Columbia Income Tax Act. For the most part, these amendments are required to maintain harmony between the provincial and federal tax systems as a condition of the British Columbia-Canada tax collection agreement.
In addition, Bill 13 provides an income tax exemption to the Vancouver International Airport Authority as part of an arrangement between the authority and the province to stimulate expansion and other developments at the airport.
Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Bonding Act.
Hon. G. Clark: The Bonding Act provides guidance to all government ministries with regard to performance security. Performance security is designed to provide the public and the government with recourse in the event of a failure by a person or company holding a government licence or permit. This bill, which replaces the present Bonding Act, will provide the government with the flexibility to accept new types of performance security and to modernize the present act by the use of plain language.
Bill 17 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.
VANCOUVER FOUNDATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
J. MacPhail presented a bill intituled Vancouver Foundation Amendment Act, 1993.
J. Macphail: Hon. Speaker, this is a bill designating moneys received by the Vancouver Foundation after 1993, if those funds have been left without designation by the estate, for the Vancouver Foundation as opposed to the community fund of United Way. The portent of the bill is supported by both the Vancouver Foundation and the United Way.
Bill Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.
LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The future of thousands of grade 12 students in this province is in limbo because of the negligence of this government in dealing with the teachers' strike. When is the Premier going to deal with this issue, and when is he going to deal with the problems that his government has created? Will the Premier do the right thing today and legislate an end to teachers' strikes in the province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are two parts to that question. First of all, we're dealing with a bill, introduced by a government of which the Leader of the Third Party was a member, that gave the right to strike and lock out. They should have recognized the consequences of that legislation when they introduced it in 1987-88. We're now living with that bill. The minister, within that legislation and other legislation
[ Page 6425 ]
introduced by this government, has a range of ways to facilitate the parties to get back to the table to negotiate a settlement. The Minister of Labour has been working very closely with the Minister of Education to make sure that our children can get back into the classroom as quickly as possible in those districts where there's a strike or lockout.
J. Weisgerber: Well, if the Premier doesn't like Bill 20, he can rescind it. The fact of the matter is, if this Premier was half as sensitive to the needs of students as he is to the needs of the unions, he would deal with this issue and deal with it today. Is the NDP so politically dependent on the unions that it's afraid to legislate teachers back to work?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to refer to what the Leader of the Third Party had to say about that. I think that in the present situation his words are very useful, when he asks this question. On April 28, 1987, speaking in support of Bill 20, the member said:
"Bill 20 is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and it gives the teaching profession many of the items that they've been asking for, like full bargaining rights. These people are dedicated, responsible professionals, and they've been left out of this process too long. They now have a choice of forming a union or having an association bargain on their behalf."
They are now carrying out those responsibilities, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure whether the Premier disagrees with me or not, or what the purpose of the quote was. In any event, in Kamloops teachers have refused to involve students in a strike. Those teachers have recognized that education is essential to the welfare of the students. Will the Premier at least call on teachers to abandon this strike action until after this school year, and get back to work and serve the interests of the students of British Columbia? Will the Premier at least stand up and ask the teachers to do that?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, that's exactly what the Vancouver teachers did: they voted 85 percent in favour of going back to the classroom. It's the trustees that now are balking at agreeing with the recommendations of Mr. Foley. The teachers in Vancouver have said they want to get back in the classroom, the kids have said they want to get back in the classroom, and the parents want the teachers and the children back in the classroom. The trustees are saying that there are two or three areas they have concerns about with Mr. Foley's recommendations. The minister has met with the trustees and they are making progress.
WELFARE FRAUD
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware of the serious charges levelled against the Ministry of Social Services by Colin Brown, a welfare investigator with the RCMP in Surrey. He was quoted as saying that welfare cheats are seldom prosecuted and that the ministry is encouraging the files to be closed because criminal charges are not in the clients' best interests. Is the minister still labelling these charges irresponsible, false and absurd, as she did in this Legislature two weeks ago?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm very clearly on the record as being concerned about any abuse in the system, whether that is through fraudulent means or any other abuse or neglect. We are doing more than any other administration in the history of this province: we have been acting, as a government, for the last 18 months, to eliminate abuse and any fraud in the system. The member is well aware of many of those initiatives, and we'll be very happy to share all of them with him.
W. Hurd: My supplemental question is to the Premier. The ministry's income assistance director, Ron Willems, is quoted as saying: "Fraud is difficult to prove and it's better to get repayment agreements and save court costs." How can the Premier stand there and tell the people of this province that he is attempting to control the provincial deficit when he refuses to hold his Minister of Social Services accountable for massive and widespread welfare fraud in the province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Obviously the member hasn't listened to what the Minister of Social Services has said for quite a few days now. If you have examples of welfare fraud or administrative error and waste, rather than the empty rhetoric that we've been hearing for the last two weeks from the opposition, you could give some positive criticisms or examples of where there is administrative waste or fraud. We have added a fraud squad to track it down. If you can see administrative waste, we have added 16 auditors to the system to track it down. If you're genuinely interested -- instead of trying to score political Brownie points -- in bringing forward real evidence instead of empty rhetoric, we're open to receiving that.
W. Hurd: Two weeks ago in this assembly the Minister of Social Services replied to a question from the member for Vancouver-Langara about Inspector Gallagher of the Surrey RCMP, and said that his comments were absurd, irresponsible and absolutely incorrect. The RCMP is trying to send this government a message that welfare fraud is out of control in this province. Will the Premier today agree to ask the minister to step aside and hold an inquiry into the functioning of this ministry so that the people of the province can be assured that our money is being well spent?
Hon. J. Smallwood: If the member will look at the question that I was answering and the comment that I was responding to, that particular person suggested that I had asked the RCMP to back off on investigations. Let me take this opportunity to insist that we have in no way suggested to anyone that they back off. We expect people to carry out their responsibilities whether it is the RCMP, an individual in this House, a citizen or an employee of the ministry. We are governed by laws.
[ Page 6426 ]
There are expectations in those laws that we carry out our responsibility and account for taxpayers' dollars.
K. Jones: To the Minister of Social Services. Yesterday you said that any reported fraud would be dealt with immediately. A constituent of yours reported extensive, detailed information on two cases of welfare fraud to the Guildford social assistance office last summer, to the welfare inspector last fall and to your office staff in Victoria. The last call to Victoria was made yesterday, and they were told that it would take a long time to get action. Why do the minister and her staff refuse to deal with this serious issue?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Every allegation or concern that is referred to our ministry is investigated. The fact that your caller has not had a report back is governed by confidentiality provisions. That, sir, is the law.
Interjections.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The law that governs income assistance, in case the member is not familiar with it, protects confidentiality. The fact is that every allegation is investigated and I am now receiving regular reports of those investigations.
[2:30]
LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS
V. Anderson: To the Premier. Education strikes are keeping over 100,000 students in B.C. out of school, and keeping teachers and other employees out of work. Both the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour have struck out in dealing with this situation. Indeed, they have passed the buck down the line. But, Mr. Premier, the buck goes up the line to yourself, and you also have struck out -- strike three. Even the students are picketing at this time. Will the Premier either admit he is not in charge or that he has neither the will nor the ability to stand up and be counted?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As the opposition huffs and puffs, they should know that there is genuine and sincere collective bargaining taking place that has brought a satisfactory end to 54 collective bargaining situations.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I am calling order so that the Chair can hear the reply. Please conclude the reply.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll try and be heard above the din of the opposition.
The opposition is well aware that 54 of the 75 school districts have settled and that the other 21 negotiations are still underway. Some are more protracted than others. I have said that the ministers are helping the school boards to reach collective agreements and get our children back into the classroom as soon as possible.
PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATION ON PROPERTY SURTAX
A. Cowie: On April 21, 1993, I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs if Maureen Maloney had advised this government or had authored the property surtax. He remained silent.
To the Minister of Finance: did Maureen Maloney advise this government on its property surtax legislation or did she in fact author the legislation?
Hon. G. Clark: I think it's about time that members of the public see the cowardly approach of members of the opposition to attack someone who cannot defend themselves. It is gutless in the extreme for members opposite to attack someone who has devoted their life to public service....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please!
Hon. G. Clark: In a free society, when someone who spends their life devoted to public service -- whether for a university or for government -- and takes a senior position in the public service of British Columbia, they should not be subject to scurrilous attacks from members of the opposition.
The government and the Minister of Finance is responsible for these kinds of policy questions. I am the minister responsible. I will debate any of those questions in this House at any time, and I accept full responsibility in this House for those decisions.
A. Cowie: Well, that was an awful lot of rhetoric; we want the facts. On April 26 I asked the Deputy Premier a question on Ms. Maloney's contract, and she took it on notice for the Minister of Finance. I still haven't gotten a reply. Perhaps the minister will answer the question today. To the Minister of Finance, then: what exactly did Ms. Maloney do for her $18,000, and was this contracting done through the University of Victoria?
Hon. G. Clark: We seek advice on tax policy from a variety of sources. We have contracted to Price Waterhouse, one of the largest accounting firms in the country. We have given thousands of dollars to that professional accounting service to provide policy advice. We sought advice all across the province in 11 public meetings from the people of British Columbia. We receive advice from members of the opposition. We receive advice from the Fraser Institute. And yes, we contracted to Maureen Maloney, in her professional capacity as an international tax expert, to give consulting advice to this government. We review all that advice from a variety of quarters, and then we make decisions. That's what government is all about. The Minister of Finance makes tax decisions with the cabinet. Those decisions were made, they're before the House for public debate, and we're responsible -- no one else -- for those decisions.
[ Page 6427 ]
WELFARE PAYMENTS MANAGEMENT
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yesterday I took a question on notice from the Leader of the Third Party. I quote what he said: "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?" I'm really happy to have my answer for the member, because it points out two things: (1) that we're acting on securing the system; and (2) that we're building on what the previous administration had in place. Our ministry has produced an unemployment insurance and GAIN recipient common claimant report since approximately 1975. I would have thought the member would have known that. The report does encompass the whole of the province, the entirety of British Columbia; it is not restricted to Vancouver. Furthermore, our ministry and Employment and Immigration Canada have just reached a new agreement that will provide even more effective information for our staff.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SMALL BUSINESS AND TRADE
(continued)
On vote 23: minister's office, $347,800 (continued).
L. Stephens: When we left the estimates yesterday we were discussing impact studies and socioeconomic studies. Perhaps we can continue along those lines a bit longer. I was particularly interested in whether or not one had been done -- and I think the minister mentioned something to this effect -- on the impact of increases in fees, licences and permits, and whether or not that was done in regard to tourism, and certainly to small business. Would the minister comment on whether there are results of that study and what the results are?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Fortunately, under Freedom of Information, advice to cabinet is confidential. But the Minister of Tourism spoke quite openly about the fact that her ministry was working with ours and the industry, looking at the cumulative effects. So there is, in the process, dialogue between government and industry representatives. That particular one on tourism was led by the Minister of Tourism. I was saying that the policy planning unit we were talking about was dealing with the format, which didn't exist in government, to work on a methodology that can be applied. I can't point you to a number of studies. There have been a number of iterations. For example, the Minister of Agriculture is looking at some of the impacts of fees on his sector. So sector by sector, there is some work going on, but no public studies. We provide advice to government and cabinet, where there's a specific question, and we try to get the information. Unfortunately, in a lot of cases, there isn't industry-specific information that can predict or depict the impact on any given industry.
L. Stephens: Earlier today in the Environment estimates, it was asked of the Environment minister whether or not there were socioeconomic studies being done in his ministry, and he made the remark that it was the Ministry of Economic Development that did those kinds of studies, and that we should inquire in this ministry. Are there other studies being done by your ministry? In particular, is there a study being done by your ministry on the ramifications of the proposed parking tax as it relates to small business and retailers in the province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When something is dignified with the label "a study," there is usually a lot of work and time and some public process involved. An example I could give you is the Celgar chip transportation study, which has been released -- various drafts were in the public domain -- and the economic impact of the Celgar pulp mill also, as far as I know. The Orenda socioeconomic impact study is being conducted now, a joint project between the bands and tribal councils in the area and the Orenda proponents. Various socioeconomic impact studies, in conjunction with some of the timber supply area reviews, are just starting to come out now. If I'm not mistaken, the Kalum timber supply study has been completed and released; there is a socioeconomic component there. With respect to the impact of the parking tax, there are many types of industries -- and we try to look at a type of industry -- but I'm not aware of any socioeconomic impact studies of that.
W. Hurd: Further to the comments by my colleague from Langley, in the Environment estimates the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks acknowledged that any analysis of economic and community stability impacts -- in connection with initiatives such as the protected-areas strategy, spotted owl study areas, timber supply reductions for habitat and that type of information -- would in fact be done by the Ministry of Economic Development. I note in reviewing the annual report of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade that one of its mandates was strengthening traditional industries and supporting strategic initiatives. One item was working to ensure the viability of B.C.'s mining, energy, smelting, chemical, transportation, forestry and other resource-based industries. My specific question relates to the three timber supply areas in the province where a significant dislocation is likely to occur as a result of initiatives by both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- the Fraser timber supply area, the situation in the Cariboo
[ Page 6428 ]
and also in the Sunshine Coast-Squamish region. Can the minister advise us what specific studies, in this set of estimates, are being done to measure the considerable impact of timber supply reductions, which may be in the area of 40 percent of the annual allowable cut?
[2:45]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Ministry of Environment has passed the buck to us. In the case of the timber supply areas, the Ministry of Forests, when they do a timber supply analysis, conducts the socioeconomic impact studies there. In the case of advice on methodology and so on, we have a lead role in that. It's quite well known in the industry and at the CORE tables that our ministry is working with the people on the socioeconomic subcommittees looking at the impacts of different land use options.
You raise the spectre of protected areas, but I know from the preliminary figuring that I have done myself, with the little information that is available, that there is one area where you can fairly easily do things -- where you have discrete land withdrawals. You can do an impact on that because you can measure it, to the extent that your inventory is correct. But when you get into the areas of integrated resource management and very elaborate options for a combination of uses, then it's much more difficult. Quite frankly, the previous government did not pursue the necessary methodology in any depth, so we don't have ready methodology. We are working to develop that to make better information available to government, so that when government makes decisions we know the impacts.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
W. Hurd: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo for reminding me of that in Committee A. I point out to the minister that there are more than 200 communities in this province with more than a 50 percent dependency on the forest industry. Is it not a major gap in the mandate of the Ministry of Economic Development when such a large chunk of the economic activity in the province appears to be exempted from much involvement by his ministry. In the Cariboo, for example, the minister, who represents that region, will be aware of the significant concern on the part of members of the IWA and other community groups about the impact of significant timber supply reductions. Could the minister maybe start at home and advise us of what work he has done in the Cariboo to address this problem, and what he intends to do during the coming fiscal year?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, we have to prioritize where we work. We are looking at the three areas where CORE is going to make some recommendations. Where those tables are operating, there are socioeconomic subgroups that are working on assessing the impacts. The Cariboo is one of those. In addition, we didn't wait for the CORE table to designate certain things. We looked at employment trends in the area. The Savage-Goodman report, which was released, chronicles the history of employment in the area and what has happened to employment in the industry when there have been different shutdowns and different sizes of cut. So we develop some historical information, which will help do some of the socioeconomic impact work. As you are probably aware, this isn't an exact science. It's something where we have to refine the methodology, and we're working on that within the fiscal limits that we have. We're making the best information available and we're doing the impact analyses.
I said that the Ministry of Forests, as a matter of routine, is doing some of that work now with their timber supply analyses, and that's quite appropriate. It is done in conjunction with those studies and that's appropriate for that. I don't think any gap exists, but we're not studying everything under the sun. We're working in the priority areas. We will continue to do that. For example, in the Strathcona timber supply area there's an apportionment of the AAC reductions that is being considered by the Ministry of Forests, so the ministry staff are developing an economic profile of the TSA and the communities that might be affected by the decisions and working with community leaders there.
I might add that we work with the communities and their leaders wherever we can so that they own and have confidence in the information that's developed.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise me exactly what role the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade has vis-�-vis the new forest sector industrial strategy committee that has been struck by the Ministry of Forests? Are we seeing any involvement from this ministry in helping to try and plan an industrial strategy for the most important industrial sector of our economy in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you may know, our ministry has had a long involvement in the industrial side of forest policy and maintains a role there. We are represented at the deputies' committee level, working with the forest sector strategy. We have a very experienced member, Peter Fisher, who has worked variously for our ministry and the Ministry of Forests. He is working on the steering committee. We are leading the industrial sector portion of the studies that are going on.
W. Hurd: I also note that according to the Economic Development ministry annual report that the ministry is represented on various provincial land use and environmental policy initiatives, such as the old-growth strategy, provincial land use strategy, the Green Plan advisory committee and the integrated resource management planning committee. Can the minister advise the committee exactly what kind of information is being communicated to these various strategy groups that are working in the environmental area? Are the minister's representatives advising these committees of the direct community economic impacts of some of the decisions they're likely to make?
[ Page 6429 ]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some of those committees exist and some of them may not anymore -- they're from an old report. We do bring the best advice and the best methodology. We are occasionally involved in some of the number crunching, depending on which area we're talking about. We ensure that those committees know the views of industry if there is nobody from industry on the committee. We bring some of the practical aspects of trying to do the community impact assessment so that it's not just a theoretical exercise.
W. Hurd: I'm still confused about the minister's direct involvement in ensuring the viability of the forest industry in the province, which supposedly is part of his mandate. I'm not hearing a lot of information about what role his ministry might be taking, other than providing some vague statistical backup. The thing that concerns me is that in the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, the minister's advice to Committee A was that any of the socioeconomic impacts of the initiatives in Environment, Lands and Parks -- such as protected-areas strategies, which result in a considerable loss of timber supply -- were totally within the purview of the Ministry of Economic Development. I have been advised that he's working to ensure the viability of the forest industry. We have been told by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks that it is his responsibility. What specifically is being done in the areas of the province where the protected-areas strategy is going to have a significant economic impact on the stability of those communities?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member should have listened a little more carefully to what I said. The role of our ministry is to advise on the proper methodology, and in some cases to conduct the studies. If you want a list of them we can get into them. I did respond in some cases. I could stand here for a long time, but I think we ought to be specific. You are generally concerned as to whether the socioeconomic impact is being assessed when a decision is taken that impacts an industry or the lives of a community. The answer to that question is yes.
Everything is at a different stage. As we assess the timber supply first, there are socioeconomic assessments being done with those. It can't be done until you assess the supply. If you were to say, "What would be the impacts of different cut levels?" those are very hypothetical. We have to get realistic options.
It is the same with the protected-areas strategy. The policy is being worked on. When it's finalized, somebody can measure the impact of that. Preliminary work is being done in all departments that have any knowledge of the resource base. To say that the Ministry of Economic Development has all the answers about all the specific impacts gets you right back to some of the technical information about the individual resources.
Do you understand that? Give your head a shake and wake up, and maybe you'll understand it.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, you didn't see the look on his face. If you listen, the Minister of Environment has staff who know about the effect on populations that might affect the guiding industry, for example, or about the effect on land use. Our ministry is not the expert in all areas of resource management. But we collect the information, put it into a format and try to get a common methodology so that we can do comprehensive impact studies. I explained that it is not a precise science.
There is an argument in the field about what the appropriate type of socioeconomic impact analysis and methodology is. I think you would feel better if you knew that the industry people who have been delegated from the CORE tables to enter into dialogue with our ministry -- as far as I've heard from industry -- are quite happy with the methodology. When they decide on some land use options, those will be run through the methodologies and the impacts will be assessed. So we are positioned to provide information on a specific timber supply area, a specific community, and so on. From the preliminary work that's been done on dependency, we know that we can generally measure the impacts. It is more difficult to measure the impact of different industry developments in the areas where we don't have a good database. It is especially difficult in the regions.
W. Hurd: That is certainly not reassuring. When a member of the public who attempts to point out to the Minister of Environment the impact of some of the policies in that ministry is told that things are under the control of the Ministry of Economic Development, and then hears an answer like that, it's not reassuring.
Perhaps I can go directly to the minister's own riding and the closing of the Weldwood mill in Williams Lake. I understand that by virtue of political pressure the minister decided to get involved in some sort of log supply study in that particular region. Forgetting for a minute that it's in an area where the minister has some proprietary interests, can he at least assure the committee that in situations like Williams Lake, where mills do shut down as a direct consequence of a reduction of the timber supply, that those regions will at least occupy a priority in terms of this ministry establishing an economic impact study.
First of all, what did he do in the Cariboo after the mill closed?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: ...closed.
The Chair: Excuse me. Minister, could you wait until you are recognized by the Chair, for the convenience of Hansard. Member, continue.
W. Hurd: What specific action did the minister take after the mill announced they were going to close?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: First of all, months before the mill closed we pulled the parties together with representatives of the union and the companies to talk about what they would do in the event of a closure. It was well-known in the community that there was one
[ Page 6430 ]
too many mills. They knew there was an overcapacity, so we brought people together to talk about adjustment, training and some other things. That was done before.
When it was announced, again we ensured that the Minister of Advanced Education and the Employment and Immigration Canada service were together to set up an industrial adjustment service. That happened within weeks of the announcement. I've met with the representatives of the company and the union to see that that process is going on.
[3:00]
We have preliminarily organized some specific training ventures, looking around at small business opportunities and generic business training for people in the area. As you correctly noted, there has been some discussion, not political pressure.... In fact, long before anybody raised it with me, there were discussions about what would be the next step in the area once we knew some of the historical information.
The CORE table has asked for dialogue with the ministry. We have set up our experts in socioeconomic impact analysis to work with them. The impact analysis is only part of it. As you know, the strategy to cope with declining employment in the industry is another part of the problem. Dealing with continuing technological change and the need to renovate the industry is all part of the provincial strategy. Where it is appropriate, we will see that local and regional strategies are also developed.
W. Hurd: Those seem to be the seeds of a productive strategy.
Given the impressive amount of work which has gone on in the Cariboo, what can other timber-dependent regions of the province expect when the effect of a 40 percent cut reduction inevitably leads to the closure of a mill? Can he commit to the committee that in fact his ministry will engage in this type of consultative work, this considerable effort on behalf of the employees and people of towns where mills are either forced to close or have announced they will have to close? Is the approach in Williams Lake the kind that we can expect everywhere in British Columbia in the coming fiscal year?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it's fair to say that you can expect what we've been talking about in the Cariboo for the other CORE regions. In fact, I would say a lot of the work on the Island is in advance of that. A lot of work happened in Port Alberni over the years. As you know, they've suffered thousands of layoffs that were not related to land use and they have mechanisms in place. Our ministry has been working very actively there and has recently increased the number of staff available. There will be an REDO located in that area to assist the community.
The approach may be different region by region. The reason is that the actors are different and the communities are at different stages of being ready to cope with it. I think the simple answer to the Cariboo question, as you know, is the fact that the Cariboo table has probably moved along faster than any of the other CORE tables -- at least they did initially -- and their subcommittee working on socioeconomic impact wanted to talk about economic strategy, particularly for the forest sector, as have some of the unions and the companies. They want to talk about creating more employment and training for value-added operations, etc.
W. Hurd: Is it possible for the job protection commissioner to be given a role in some of these areas as an alternative to direct services by the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade? Or can we expect that the critical industries commissioner or Mr. Kerley will have any involvement in some of these impending decisions? Decisions will clearly have to be made within the next one or two years as the timber supply crunch begins to seriously impact particularly some of the small, independent sawmills in the province.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the member has raised a very good point, and I hope that that side supports this approach to Mr. Kerley. When we were talking about the changes to the act, we talked about this difference between cyclical and structural problems. I think you're hinting at the fact that there are structural problems in the forest industry that need to be addressed.
Doug Kerley, the job protection commissioner, very often gets involved in problems that are not just cyclically related, and I spoke about that as one of the things he deals with. I can give you some examples of where he is involved. He is working in the Anahim Lake area, where Carrier's sawmill was closed down, as you know. He is doing some economic mediation in there. He is in the Kitwanga area, where again a mill has been shut down. He's trying to find a way of restructuring fibre flows and the financial arrangements between the different parties. We will be asking Doug Kerley to go in where there is a role for him. There has to be a company operating, but he can go in at the invitation of any party or of the government. In some cases we have requested that he go in; in other cases, other parties have. He has a fairly free role. He's also been very active in the Port Alberni area, as you may know, looking at the start-up of alternative industries. He does develop economic plans that look very much like community-specific, sectoral plans.
G. Farrell-Collins: I was in the estimates the other day when the minister was discussing the review that was taking place into fees and licences and the impact they would have on small business. Unfortunately I couldn't get involved in the debate at the time as we were approaching the end of the hour. If I heard the minister correctly, it was my understanding that this review was to evaluate the impact of the previous budget and the fees and licences that came along with that. Is that a correct assumption on my part?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think the process we are trying to develop is one of gathering more information and working with industry groups in looking at the
[ Page 6431 ]
total package. It's not any one budget or the other; it's looking at the competitive position of that particular industry and the total effect. You can't escape looking at other things like the costs of production. For example, in an industry that I know fairly well, the cattle industry, the rising costs are as much a problem of other input costs as they are taxes. You have to look at the whole thing to see what the impact of any given tax and fee regime might be. So the intent is to develop a way of getting the information, which doesn't readily exist, but doing that in cooperation with sector groups.
G. Farrell-Collins: In the minister's remarks opening his estimates he stated that his ministry has completed impact assessments of grazing fees and other fees on the agricultural community and that the branch would be undertaking socioeconomic impact studies of CORE activities, the protected-areas strategy and land use processes, among other things. Again, it was my understanding, from the last sitting of his estimates that I attended, that the minister said these reviews were being done on fees and licences and other impacts that had already taken place in order to evaluate the impact of them. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, not quite. What I was saying in my previous response was that you have to know the situation that the industry is in. You have to look at the total constraints and opportunities that the industry has -- the profitability, in other words, or lack thereof. But the process we're engaged in now is to look at the proposed fee and licence increases, many of which you quoted from a draft document. The idea would be to do the impact analysis before.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to hear that. It wasn't what I thought I heard last time, but I'm glad the minister was able to clarify that. So the minister is saying that before any of these fees and licence increases were brought in, a socioeconomic impact study was done on each and every one, or on the related industry -- particularly the small business community, which was more profoundly affected by them than others.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Our ministry is a Small Business ministry as well as a Trade and Economic Development one. So we look at the large industries as well, which have an effect on small industries where they're the main generator of economic activity in the area. For example, we would have to look at the cumulative impact on the pulp industry, or the mining industry. Sometimes some of these studies are done. If there appears to be a problem, we would look at it retroactively or look at it in the future. So I use general language. The intent is to create a methodology by having a format and the information from the industry. What we are attempting to do, as we did in the Tourism ministry, is to sit down with the industry and put all the things on the table, and ask where there is some room, because there is a real need to try and put the cost to those people who benefit from the licensing or the fee.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll just ask a couple more questions to clarify this. The minister is stating that in the recent past and at present, the ministry is developing the methodology to do these on an ongoing basis, as time goes by, as opposed to having to step in and target one particular fee or licence and trying to get a rolling program so that as these issues come up, they can be evaluated in a timely manner as opposed to after the fact. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It varies sector by sector. In the case of the Tourism ministry, they've already gone through that process. They have sort of worked it out. I think it's fair to say this will be done on a rolling basis. Methodology and techniques that the public officials felt comfortable with weren't there, so we've developed some skill in that field. In some cases it's very difficult to predict. It's an ongoing base of improving the methodology and, I dare say, we'll get better at it.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to hear that that type of an evaluation is being done. Can we assume, can the community assume, can the opposition assume that in the future, before any fee or licence is levied or increased, there will be some level of study done, now that the methodology has been developed? Will the government evaluate each of these items with its potential impact before the fee increases or the licence fees are levied? Are we going to see those impact studies beforehand or afterwards?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will, to the extent that we have knowledge, data and techniques. There may be something you might call a fee or a licence or a cost of business that escapes the filter; it's not an exact science yet. But we will be doing more of it. I think we can give some assurance that there will be an attempt to work with groups, and this would be an invitation to any group to work with them on impacts. We will engage any group that is organized and can present data to work with us in some kind of assessment process so that we have background and base case studies to predict the impact when there is a change.
G. Farrell-Collins: Will the socioeconomic impact studies be applied not just to fee and licence increases but also to new taxes or increases in general taxes. I'm thinking particularly about the jet fuel tax which was brought in, and subsequently there were some changes made to that. I assume the minister was involved in raising the level of the corporation capital tax to the point where some of the smaller businesses were excluded or exempt from that tax. Are we also likely to see those types of things, or was this methodology that the minister talks about used to rectify some of the errors of those policies?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't state that categorically. It varies. In the particular case that you used, the Minister of Finance had the capacity to do some of the assessment work, and they did it themselves.
Just to give you an example, we were talking about socioeconomic impact studies, which are slightly
[ Page 6432 ]
different than sectoral impact studies for any particular industry. We work with a broad range of departments, including Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Forests, Tourism, Transportation, and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There may be others that are not on the list. It depends a little on how acute the problems are. Take small business, for example. There are so many categories of small business that we tend to try to look at the impacts -- some of that work we often refer to and boast about on competitiveness. One methodology is to look at all the taxes and what competitiveness is. It's very easy to take that methodology, crank in the new numbers and look at the profitability figures.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the minister was approached by members of a certain sector in the business community and asked for those types of reviews as they relate to a specific policy of the government, is that the type of thing the government is looking to get involved in with this methodology, as well as perhaps evaluating policy decisions? Oftentimes a government -- any government -- takes a policy decision that may have unforeseen impacts in various sectors. If those sectors were to ask for this type of a process to be entered into to evaluate the impact of those, is it the type of thing the minister is planning to use this methodology with?
[3:15]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Generally speaking, you're correct. But as I said previously on at least one occasion, the advice about the impact is probably advice to cabinet or advice to the Minister of Finance, and we're not in a position to release that. Quite often, if it's industry's own figures, they will be replicated and presented as such. There may be another opinion by Treasury Board or another line ministry if they have done some backgrounding studies. Every minister responsible for a sector of the economy is very interested in profitability and the future, so he's interested in getting the backgrounding data. In some cases the data that exists isn't very good, but we're trying to improve that within our fiscal limits.
G. Farrell-Collins: If a sector didn't feel comfortable going to one of the ministers that may or may not have been responsible for the policy or the program and it came to your ministry to ask specifically for your participation in an evaluation of that impact, would the ministry look favourably at that and try to accommodate them to some extent?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, we certainly would look favourably on it. As I say, the existence of data is one of the problems, and trying to generate that data will require the cooperation of the industry.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the sector involved in a ministry were to come to the minister and it was willing to supply whatever data they had and to participate in that process, the ministry would look favourably on it and also be willing to participate.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. A recent example is our friends in the auto industry. They have engaged in discussion with the Minister of Finance, and if they need some help, we'll be there.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I said if the Ministry of Finance needs help. We'll be where we're needed. We keep track of what's going on and we assist where necessary. If a line ministry has a large number of counters -- like Finance -- we give probably less assistance, but we certainly are interested. As I said earlier, we're there to ensure that the views of the industry are made clearly known at the cabinet table.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to hear that. I don't recall that those were the exact sentiments that the minister expressed in question period as it related to the automotive industry. It seems somewhat different. But he'll have to live with that, not me. It wasn't necessarily the automotive industry I was curious about; it was the policy brought forth by the Minister of Labour sometime last year without any debate or discussion in this House, despite the promise made by the Minister of Labour -- and the Premier, mind you -- that that debate would take place. The Minister of Labour, the Premier and, I believe, the Minister of Finance have been asked to table any information, economic impact studies or reports that they have on how that fair wage policy would affect their sectors and indeed the revenues and expenditures of the government. So I'm sure those members of the construction industry, having heard the minister's comments today, will be contacting him -- I would imagine either tomorrow or early next week -- to engage in that study and ensure that that study is done, given the warm invitation expressed by the Minister of Economic Development and his willingness to participate. I know they're very willing to participate and will help you at every step of the way. I'm sure that the minister will help by providing information to them and working with them to help to find the impact that that policy -- an undebated, unproven policy -- has had on the revenues and expenditures of this government and indeed the revenues and expenditures and the profitability, or lack of profitability, of the construction industry.
L. Fox: I appreciate the opportunity to enter back into the debate. I've found some of the discussion over the course of the last half an hour to be quite interesting. But before I get into that, the minister shouted across the floor during my opening discussion yesterday that the issue of mining exploration dollars being lost by British Columbia to Chile was merely a tax write-off by the mining companies. Later in the afternoon I noticed in reading the Blues that he denied that to the Liberal critic. But given all these studies that he is telling the
[ Page 6433 ]
opposition members are being conducted, I want to ask what studies are being conducted into the loss in the mining sector of those exploration dollars. That is important to communities like Smithers, Fort St. James, Prince George and many rural communities around the province that have had much of their economies substantially enhanced and diversified by exploration dollars. What kinds of studies has this minister done over the course of the last year to find out why those dollars are leaving British Columbia and how they're affecting the economies of those respective communities?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I could go back with a question and say that I wonder what kind of studies the government, the party you represent, did when mines shut down and when....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm answering the question, if you'd care to listen. The previous government would not look at the impact when mines would shut down or when there was a reduction in the allowable annual cut.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: And you're getting something better. I said within the limits of the....
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please, hon. members.
Interjection.
The Chair: Could the member for Prince George-Omineca repeat his question.
L. Fox: I'm astounded, hon. Chairman. It was a pretty obvious question. The minister spent the last half an hour talking about the fact that he has developed a model for doing economic impact studies. Here we have a segment of the mining industry that has left British Columbia because of this government's policies, not the previous government's policies. The exploration dollars left this province in 1992-93, not prior to that. I want to know what kind of studies have been done to identify why those particular dollars are leaving this province and to identify how it has affected communities such as Smithers, Terrace, Fort St. James, Prince George and others around the province that have had a large part of their economies leave B.C. because of the policies of this government with respect to the mining industry.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Your question has a lot of parts. With respect to the mining situation, if you talk to mine managers, they will tell you that the trend started before we were government. They'll argue that they're still in a difficult situation, and that's the reason the mineral strategy has been created. Through the mineral strategy, those kinds of generic studies about the impact of the industry on the economy of B.C. will be done.
That's the answer to one part of your question. As for the other part, I wasn't talking about models for economic studies. We were talking specifically about the socioeconomic impact of certain events on particular communities Any community that wants to do that can ask. They have resources. We fund a lot of economic development commissions. We work with communities not just to look at the negatives but at some of the positives and opportunities that are there. As you and I know, most resource-dependent communities have fewer and fewer industry employees anyway because those industries are downsizing their workforces. My introductory comments to your question were that when you had restructuring in the past, I don't think that was done to any extent. We're trying to do a better job of it.
L. Fox: My understanding of that last dissertation is that there have been no studies from either a socio-economic point of view or an economic development point of view to address the fact that this province lost well over $100 million in mining exploration in 1992-93. Is that correct?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm quite sure that the Ministry of Mines has done some of that. As I said earlier, we don't do the studies for every particular case; where a line ministry has some responsibility, they do it. The Minister of Finance is always looking at different scenarios and different impacts as well.
L. Fox: Given that you talked earlier about a communication link between the respective ministries, you've got to admit, Mr. Minister, that if studies like this had been done or were in the process of being done anywhere in the cabinet, obviously you, as a minister, would have some knowledge of it. I don't expect you to know what the exact impacts are, but because you represent small business and economic development in this province, you should have a mainline right into those kinds of studies. I don't understand why you suggest that they may have been done. I would expect you, as the Minister of Economic Development, to know why those dollars are leaving B.C. to be reinvested elsewhere in the world. Is it your policy as government? What other limitations, be it the Schwindt commission or the environment...what other obstacles to those kinds of investments are presently in place? I'm disappointed that the minister doesn't have a handle on that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We do studies, and we know that the whole of Canadian industry is having trouble because of labour costs and the general investment climate in Canada as compared to Chile, for example. That is part of the general problem. You know that. I think the industry itself has some information. We have some information, and we understand some of the reasons. We tend to focus on available economic
[ Page 6434 ]
opportunities and do socioeconomic impact studies of, for example, the copper smelter and that sort of thing. You can shake your head, but we do that work. If we're called upon to do some work in a particular sector, we will do it.
L. Fox: What this minister is saying right now to me and to British Columbians is that the existing jobs and investment we have in this province aren't important. He's saying that if some of it leaves, it's not important -- we'll look at new jobs and new opportunities. I've been involved in economic development plans a good part of my life, and I know that the number one objective of any plan is to protect the existing jobs first, before you start investing in other new jobs.
I'm disappointed that this minister hasn't been proactive in knowing why these jobs are leaving the province of British Columbia so that he can advise his cabinet on taxing policies, energy policies and all those other issues that are addressed on a day-to-day basis and affect the jobs we have in British Columbia today. I would ask the minister to stand up and defend that lack of action and representation on behalf of those people who are losing their jobs every day in British Columbia because this minister is not proactive enough in making sure that the government understands the present needs and climate in this province.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The member makes a lot of assertions, but I have to tell him that where there is a major sector, we generally know the impact and some of the causes. I was trying to explain to him that it's not just the actions or tax policy of government that are affecting some of those industries. We can't be responsible for a total understanding of the world economic environment that affects the mining industry. But the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has a pretty good idea, and they have written about that and published that in the mineral strategy background paper.
We are working actively with that ministry and with the industry in looking at the review of the tax burden on the mining industry. We're participating in the development of a compensation policy for resource takings. We send the JPC in to look at specific jobs. We're working extremely hard in the city of Trail, and you know that. The job protection commissioner is in there. We are devoting considerable resources to the future of that community, protecting existing jobs in a downsized industry. We are working very actively and we have a lot of information on a community-by-community basis. To suggest that we're not doing anything is wrong, and I can give lots of examples. I don't take responsibility for the general environment in which mining finds itself in Canada or in the world today, because things change. For example, as zinc prices go down, it makes it more difficult, and we have to change all the numbers for the computations in and around the future of Trail. So we are doing that.
[3:30]
L. Fox: I didn't expect that the government or the minister could do anything about the world mineral prices, lumber prices or any other prices. But obviously, if this minister would have understood prior to putting the corporation capital tax on the mining industry that it could not afford the kind of taxation that bears no resemblance to the ability to pay, that would have been the kind of policy decision the minister should have influenced, saying: "Hey, fellow cabinet ministers, this sector of the economy cannot afford to pay this kind of tax at this particular time. They are already shutting down; we're already losing jobs in that industry." That's how this minister should react. I do not expect him to control the metal prices.
Similarly, had this minister done the kind of baseline study that he referred to earlier, he would have understood that the auto dealers and the public can't afford those extra tax dollars, and that they're going to have a huge negative impact on auto sales in British Columbia and a directly related impact on the employees of those dealerships. Those are the kinds of policy decisions that this minister had an opportunity to influence -- but obviously has not influenced -- over the course of the last year. That's where I expect this minister to be more proactive and, as I said yesterday, to be more of an advocate for those small business jobs, which represent virtually half the jobs in British Columbia.
D. Jarvis: Forty thousand of them.
L. Fox: Forty thousand? Just for the information of the building, there are over half a million jobs in small businesses that employ less than 20 full time employees. That's how important this segment is. This minister doesn't seem to understand that.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The heavy mining provinces of Manitoba and Ontario have a corporation capital tax as well. Your point is whether the industry has the ability to pay. Yesterday I said that the mining industry has indicated to us that if you removed all taxes, fees and licenses there would be a 3 to 5 percent difference in their operating bottom line. That wouldn't be enough to start a new mine. I'm saying there are bigger problems.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, the previous government left us with a deficit that we had to bring down.
W. Hurd: Given that licences are the only form of security that can be used for capital expansion in the forest industry, and that the security of licences is a major consideration when it comes to financing enterprises in the forest sector, what kind of advice is the minister providing to the Ministry of Attorney General, and in particular earlier on to the Schwindt commission, about the direct impact that resource takeaways will have on the ability of both existing and new enterprises to finance capital expansions in the province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, the government is carefully examining the Schwindt commission report,
[ Page 6435 ]
and there are any number of pieces of advice that are offered to the Attorney General. The advice that we offer is privileged information.
W. Hurd: I was privileged enough to serve on a select standing committee of the Legislature which met with the valued-added industry throughout this province. The common message was that they can't get access to financing if they don't have security of licences. Has this information been communicated to the Minister of Economic Development? What ideas has his ministry developed to get around this significant financing problem in the small business forest sector in this province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Your committee hasn't reported out yet, has it? When it does we will examine it. I'm familiar with the argument that they want to invest capital and use the standing trees as a form of security. I remind the member that the Celgar Pulp mill was built without any licences whatsoever. It doesn't necessarily follow, but I know it's of concern. That's the reason the tenures are there, and that's why we say that those with tenure should be creating jobs. I appreciate the situation that the small industries that don't have a timber supply are in. That's why we continue the program of offering sales that are available to value-added industries.
The tenure issue is something you should -- if you haven't already -- pursue with the Minister of Forests. That's an area of policy he is responsible for. With respect to our responsibilities for industrial policies, we do look at the needs of some of the small operations. More than anything, the need is for a secure supply of fibre. They are saying it would be easier to secure financing and fibre if we had the standing trees. Maybe the answer is to assist in the development of a fair trading environment on commodities so that they can use those as inputs to their operations. There are probably a number of things that can be done. We are actively examining the conditions that make it favourable for valued-added operations to get up and running.
W. Hurd: I'm going to try to simplify it. When a manufacturer in the forest sector goes to the bank and tries to borrow money, the first question they are asked is: "How much secure access to timber do you have in the form of a licence?" At the present time the Ministry of Attorney General is investigating ways to limit compensation for those licences in British Columbia. Surely the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, which is interested in business financing, would be making some recommendations to the Ministry of Attorney General about the impact that unfavourable policies on resource compensation will have on the ability of business to finance capital expansions.
Is there any study being done within the ministry that will identify the real dangers of a negative policy on resource compensation and what impact that might have on the ability of new business formations in the forest sector in this province?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We are actively involved in the examination of the Schwindt report, and we provide advice to the government on the impacts of different policies.
L. Fox: Just to follow up on that point, when Bill 32 was tabled last year and subsequently left on the order paper, did the minister do any studies as to what the impact of Bill 32 would have been on the resource sector of our economy?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As for a discrete study in relation to Bill 32, no. But generally the indicators are there. If certain things happen, what are the impacts? We have dialogue with the industry, as does the Ministry of Forests. We collect that information and make it known. That's the way we operate. In some cases there are existing studies that can tell you, and Schwindt did look at existing studies. I will have to leave my answer at that.
L. Fox: The minister suggested that they had compiled some information and had made it known. I would like to follow up and ask whether that was published and made known publicly, and whether he would like to outline some of the findings of that for us now.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said before, that was confidential advice to cabinet.
W. Hurd: In connection with the natural resource community fund, can the minister tell us whether funds are available within that special fund to finance specific studies on communities in this province which are dependent on one major industry. Is there any avenue available through that special fund to fund special projects?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The NRC fund is used for emergency purposes where there is no other source of money for mitigating the situation of a shut-down or a major downsizing. It is not explicitly for studies. Studies are done through funding by our ministry, where we will fund either an economic development commission to do it or in some cases a special initiative. The fund is for program dollars, not study dollars.
W. Hurd: I just have a few further questions. One issue of interest to my riding -- which may have been canvassed during the last two days; and if it has been and the answer is in Hansard, I'd appreciate the direction from the minister -- involves cross-border shopping, which is a serious concern to people in Surrey-White Rock, Langley and in other communities.
I wonder if the minister could advise the committee exactly what kind of work will be done in the coming fiscal year to identify the erosion of business opportunity with cross-border shopping in dollars terms and advise whether the ministry has done projections on the value of the dollar. Should the Canadian dollar sink, do you feel we're going to be dealing with a significant increase in this economic issue, which affects so many
[ Page 6436 ]
ridings along the border of our province with Washington and Idaho -- and even Oregon and California.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, we didn't canvass this issue. As the dollar drops, we're in a better position. All efforts dealing with cross-border shopping indicate that when our dollar is lower, the cross-border shopping drops off. There's been a significant reduction in that area. When there was a major problem, we worked with the retailers to try to enhance their marketing strategies, and I think quite successfully. We will continue to work with any of the businesses in the area to enhance their retailing capacity so as to minimize the effect of it.
W. Hurd: Is there any intention to develop some sort of Buy B.C. program along the lines of the outstanding program we understand is at work within the Ministry of Agriculture? At least we're always assured it's outstanding even if the contracts sometimes disappear into New York State. Can the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade advise us as to whether or not...?
Interjection.
W. Hurd: I see I'm engaged in a debate with the Minister of Agriculture about his outstanding Buy B.C. contract, which he has yet to explain to whom it was awarded.
[3:45]
Is there any interest on the part of the Economic Development minister in encouraging consumers to shop at home for other products, not just agricultural products?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think one of the problems is that there are very few made-in-B.C. products; we don't have a large manufacturing sector. We work with the retailers because just focusing on made-in-B.C. would not be enough. We continue to work with the retailers, but the major effort is in agricultural products that are made in B.C. We work with the retailers to promote the retailing of all the products that they have. Yes, we would work with them to encourage Buy B.C.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that some retailers in the southern part of the province have actually gone to court to try to induce the federal government to take a more aggressive approach at the border in terms of collecting duties on small purchases. Has the ministry identified any studies or any money for studies which would assist those operators, or businesses in the province, in encouraging the federal government to be more aggressive in discouraging cross-border shopping by collecting the appropriate fees and duties at the border? Does his ministry accept that this is a significant problem?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not aware of a request to do those particular studies; I am aware that the Ministry of Agriculture is examining that problem.
I would just like to point out to you that in January of this year the number of trips was more than 30 percent lower than that for the same month last year. This shows that it is related to the dollar.
L. Fox: I suppose a less positive individual in British Columbia might suggest that because of the taxation policies of this government they don't have the money to spend across the border.
I want to ask one final question on the issue of mining exploration. The minister has openly admitted that his ministry has not reacted in any positive way to the loss of those exploration dollars from British Columbia to Chile and elsewhere in the world. Obviously that has had an extremely negative impact on the economies of many small communities in rural and northern British Columbia. Is there any money within this budget to identify those negative impacts and determine what has caused those dollars to leave British Columbia and go elsewhere in the world. As well, what has the impact of the loss of that economy meant to small communities such as Smithers, Fort St. James, Prince George and others in the East and West Kootenays? Is the minister committed to explore over the course of the next year what that impact has been?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There are two kinds of studies. One is on the effect on the provincial economy, and that is part of the work that's going on with respect to the mineral strategy. That work is underway in the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry, and we're cooperating with them on that.
With respect to the impact on local communities, it probably hasn't been done for every little community, unless the communities themselves have undertaken some impact studies with the funds we provide for local economic development commissions. We're asked to do that. We try to cooperate with them, and that's one of the reasons that we have put more people in the field. We're still hiring analysts, so we don't have everybody in place. We will enhance the capacity of small communities and regions to do the impact assessments. As I said, they won't necessarily understand the world environment that's causing a negative impact, but we will also help that through the larger mineral strategy work that's being done.
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's comment. Given the difficulties that I saw last year when I, on behalf of the community of Fort St. James, requested some dollars to be proactive in promoting a mining conference in Fort St. James -- the community has worked very hard to diversify their economy through the mining sector -- and given that it was very difficult to attract any dollars from this minister and his ministry.... The ministry come forward with $5,000 to help defray the costs only three days before. What kind of dollars are available in your budget for those respective communities to do those kinds of studies?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Through good management of our ministry and coming in a little underbudget, we had $5,000 that we could finally grant to that
[ Page 6437 ]
community. At the time of their earlier application, we didn't have the money in our budget. The money was committed. We would have liked to have responded positively right at the start, but we weren't able to.
I'm glad that you and some of your neighbouring MLAs persisted, and I'm glad that the conference was successful. I think the money was probably well spent. When we have these conferences, we have to find ways of bringing data together and reporting out so that we can use that information the next time we want to do some impact studies. We do a lot of little specific studies. We can't do everything that people want to do, but we can often take the impact from one community and use it in another community.
L. Fox: In quick response, I found it rather amusing that while I made the request on behalf of the community of Fort St. James, the minister decided to issue the cheque to the neighbouring MLA -- who just happens to be on his side of government -- to have it distributed. However, the issue of who delivered the cheque was really unimportant. The fact of the matter is that the money got there.
Hon. Chair, I did ask how many dollars were available in his budget for those kinds of studies, and I would appreciate that answer.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The budget amount that we have is about $470,000, and it covers a number of types of studies: regional planning studies, small business studies and socioeconomic studies may be are done, for example, in and around the Fraser basin. If through the Fraser basin management process we identify a particular area where some work has to be done in relation to a land-use plan, then we may spend it in that area. That covers a wide range.
L. Fox: I'd like to go into that in further depth, but I'll reserve that opportunity. I understand that today we have limited time, so I'll defer at this time to the Liberal critic.
L. Stephens: I'd like to follow-up a little bit on what the member for Surrey-White Rock put forward as far as cross-border shopping is concerned, and particularly the federal-provincial tax integration. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has put forward some recommendations. One of the recommendations is that the provincial government immediately negotiate with the federal government to establish a common Social Services tax and GST collection system which provides for the collection of both taxes on all purchased consumer goods imported at federal points of entry into the province. I wonder if that is a policy or an initiative that your ministry is advancing to the Minister of Finance, and whether that's something that we can look forward to discussing at another date.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You're getting into an area that is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. We're certainly aware of the requests, but in general terms we're opposed to the harmonizing of the GST because we don't wish to tax some of the areas that the GST applies to.
L. Stephens: I was asking primarily from the point of view of small business, and the desire that business in general has for the harmonization of the GST and the PST. The main reason for that -- one that business has constantly been debating -- is that the compliance costs, the regulation, the paperwork and so on result in needless confusion, complexity and unnecessary duplication at both levels of government. Is there is any discussion at all in this ministry -- and any representation on behalf of business to the Minister of Finance in this area -- of a harmonization of the PST and the GST?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We get criticism for extending the PST to some areas -- some of which might be covered -- so we have to be careful that when we're being criticized for that, we're not asking for more of the same sort of thing we're being criticized for. To answer your question about whether or not we are making anything known to the Minister of Finance, we do make findings known when they're conclusive. In this particular case, we don't think there's consensus in the small business community yet about whether or not there should be harmonization. We are examining this issue, though, as part of the small business strategy we're developing -- as a part of the review of what small business needs to be more competitive and more effective, and to reduce the paper burden. We will advise the Minister of Finance of our findings.
L. Stephens: I'm pleased to hear the minister make the commitment to small business and business in general in the province in regard to taxation -- particularly the GST and the PST.
One other area that business is concerned about is the machinery and equipment tax that has been around for quite some time. I know that the chamber has made representations to successive governments on that issue in the last number of years. They have consistently recommended that that be eliminated, and that the social service tax be eliminated and applied to the purchase of machinery and equipment and to the energy and supplies consumed in the production of manufactured or processed goods for resale.
In 1984 the Ministry of Finance carried out a study that resulted in some initiatives that phased in elimination from 1985 through 1987 of property taxation applied to machinery and equipment. Since that time the chamber has reaffirmed its commitment to the existing policy, and said that the social service tax should be used as an element of a provincial government economic renewal program, and should be extended to encourage both modernization and computerization in order to make businesses in British Columbia more diversified and able to compete with other jurisdictions. In particular, there is an absence of this form of taxation in other Canadian provinces.
I would like to know if the ministry supports or has a commitment to this policy resolution. This recommendation was also put forward in the Task Force on Small Business Programs and Services --
[ Page 6438 ]
Strengthening Small Business in the 90s -- and I would like to know if the minister is committed to and supports this policy resolution.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There can be only one view of government, and that is what the cabinet or the minister responsible decides. I can give you comfort that we listen to the views of the chamber when they make their annual presentation and to the views of the manufacturers' associations when they are made known. We enter into a dialogue, present our view of the impact, and of course the reduction of any tax can be seen as an incentive to any industry. Why are taxes there? They are there as a revenue measure, and it's quite a large amount right now. I don't think the Minister of Finance is convinced that if that tax were removed, there would be a stimulation of business that would result in an equivalent amount of tax. Otherwise, there might be an incentive to do that.
[4:00]
However, I think you can take comfort in the fact that the views of small business organizations with respect to any particular tax will be adjudicated by our ministry, and if we find them to be true we will pass on those remarks with our advice. In most cases our advice favours small business. When the decision is taken, we as a government stand by the decision. I would suggest that these particular taxes be discussed with the Minister of Finance, because he is the one that makes the decision on the taxes.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 22.
TREATY COMMISSION ACT
Hon. A. Petter: I move the bill now be read a second time.
When our government took office some 18 months ago, we made an important commitment to aboriginal peoples and to all British Columbians. We pledged to take action in a concerted way to forge a new relationship with the first nations people of this province, a relationship that was based on trust and mutual respect, a relationship that will enable first nations communities to move forward toward greater self-reliance and self-determination; and a relationship that will allow us all -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- to move beyond conflict and confrontation and work together to address our common concerns and goals. We pledged to build that relationship based upon a recognition of inherent rights and upon a foundation of just and honourable treaty settlements.
Today, some 120 years after this province entered Confederation, British Columbia remains one of the very few jurisdictions in North America where the question of aboriginal title is still largely unresolved. Unlike the rest of Canada, where treaties were signed to officially clarify jurisdiction over lands, in British Columbia very few treaties were signed. Indeed, the great land mass of this province remains unresolved in terms of treaties. This huge outstanding issue has had, and continues to have, profound economic and social consequences for this province.
The Treaty Commission Act is designed to ensure that at long last we will have in place a stable process to develop fair and lasting solutions to this issue through the negotiation of modern-day treaties. The act is the embodiment of a unique process involving the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada and the First Nations Summit. In conjunction with an act of the Parliament of Canada and a resolution of the First Nations Summit, the bill will establish the B.C. Treaty Commission as a legal entity. It will also ensure the commitment of the two governments and first nations to the long-term stability and effectiveness of the treaty negotiation process in British Columbia. The bill is designed to operate in association with the British Columbia Treaty Commission agreement that was entered into by the Prime Minister, the Premier and the summit leaders on September 21, 1992. This agreement, together with the act, will continue to direct the operations of the Treaty Commission.
The Treaty Commission Act sets out the primary and most important functions of the B.C. Treaty Commission. These include assessing the readiness of the parties to begin negotiations, ensuring that funds are allocated to first nations to participate in those negotiations, encouraging timely negotiations, assisting the parties where they agree and obtaining dispute resolution services and preparing and maintaining a public record on the status of negotiations.
In addition, the legislation specifies that the decisions of the commission must be agreed to by at least one commissioner appointed by each of the three parties -- a consensus process. It also recognizes the role of the First Nations Summit as the body representing the first nations that have agreed to participate in this treaty commission process.
The Treaty Commission Act is really the culmination of a process that began more than two years ago, when the previous administration of this province established the British Columbia Claims Task Force under the then-minister, the hon. Jack Weisgerber, Minister of Native Affairs. The key recommendation of that task force was to set an independent treaty commission to oversee treaty negotiations in this province. One of the important steps that our government took upon assuming office was to act on that recommendation. No one was more proud than I to participate last fall, along with the Premier, the Prime Minister and summit leaders, in the signing of the agreement that has led to the creation of the B.C. Treaty Commission.
[ Page 6439 ]
Another major step was taken last month with the appointment of the chief commissioner and four commissioners, all of whom I think can rightly claim that they are people of leading calibre and can command the respect and attention of people of this province in pursuing this very difficult task. Indeed I think the calibre of people that have been appointed to the Treaty Commission is an indication of the commitment of the federal and provincial governments as well as the First Nations Summit to making this process work.
Over the next few months those five treaty commissioners will have an awesome task -- the task of laying the groundwork for treaty negotiations to begin. We are anticipating that it will take some months for the commissioners to establish mechanisms that will be acceptable to both governments and to first nations, and they must be mechanisms that will stand the test of time over the duration of treaty negotiations in British Columbia.
In developing these mechanisms, the commissioners will be consulting extensively with both governments and with the First Nations Summit. It's our hope and expectation that the commission will be fully operational by the fall of 1993, and that the first treaty negotiations will begin under this process some time after that. Over time, it is likely the commission will handle as many as 20 or perhaps even 30 sets of treaty negotiations.
The commission will play a very central role in facilitating the treaty negotiation process in this province. I think it's important for members to recognize that the commission will not be involved in the actual negotiations themselves. Rather, it will serve as what has sometimes been described as a keeper of the process. It will coordinate the start of treaty negotiations; it will monitor their progress; it will ensure the public has been provided with ongoing information regarding the status of negotiations; and generally it will oversee the process and report to the parties and, through the government, to this Legislature on the progress of negotiations. Indeed, the Treaty Commission is required to report annually, through government, to this Legislature, as well as to the First Nations Summit and the Parliament of Canada.
It's important to stress, however, that the commission has a degree of independence from the three parties. It is not an agent of any of the parties. It operates at arm's length, ensuring that negotiations are conducted fairly and in the interests of all British Columbians.
Looking at the various tasks assigned to the commission, I think one of the most important and challenging will be determining the readiness of each of the parties to undertake negotiations once the commission has received statements of intent from those first nations who claim to be ready to begin negotiations. This responsibility is formalized in the Treaty Commission Act and spelled out in detail in the Treaty Commission agreement. For example, it includes ensuring that each party has appointed a negotiator, has sufficient resources to carry out the negotiating process and has identified the substantive and procedural matters that need to be negotiated. In the case of first nations, it means ensuring that first nations have identified and begun to address issues regarding overlapping territorial claims with neighbouring first nations -- potentially a very difficult issue that must be resolved if treaty negotiations are to be successful.
The responsibility of the commission also means ensuring that the two governments have obtained background information on the communities, peoples and interests likely to be affected by the negotiations, and have established mechanisms for consultation with non-aboriginal interests prior to the beginning of negotiations. In other words, the commission has the authority to make sure that no treaty negotiations get underway in this province until effective processes are in place for consulting with third-party and other non-aboriginal interests. This clause of the Treaty Commission agreement supports and formalizes the strong commitment of our government to ensuring that there is an effective third-party consultation process; and indeed that is a commitment we have acted on and are continuing to act upon.
I wish to say, hon. Speaker, that as we move ahead on treaty negotiations, we as a government are keenly aware that if these negotiations are to succeed they must command the support of all British Columbians, that groups and sectors of the population that have a particular interest in treaty negotiations must be assured they have input into the process. Those groups wish to ensure that their concerns are heard and addressed throughout the negotiation process, and they want to play a meaningful role in that process. As a government, we have pledged to ensure that third parties, including local governments, are fully consulted throughout the negotiations. Behind that commitment is an important recognition: if we are to succeed, those who have a stake in the outcome of these negotiations, including non-aboriginal British Columbians, must feel included in this process of change.
My ministry has worked particularly hard over the past year to ensure that that feeling of inclusion will be realized throughout these negotiations. For example, at the province-wide level, together with the federal government, we have accepted in principle the recommendations of the provincial third-party advisory committee. We have been working with the committee over a number of months to ensure a new, more effective process to make sure that third parties are involved in treaty negotiations -- and in particular that sectors can make their particular sectoral interests known throughout third-party negotiations.
We have, in the course of this, persuaded the federal government to participate as well so that third parties can ensure that the consultation process takes place with both levels of government. They don't have to engage in two separate processes, but can participate in a single vehicle for that consultation. This new consultation process will help ensure that the interests and expertise of third parties are understood and taken into account in all negotiations with first nations, both treaty and pretreaty, and that the solutions arrived at are balanced solutions that serve the interests of all British Columbians.
[ Page 6440 ]
A key component of our commitment to consult is the recognition of the special interest that local governments have in treaty and other negotiations. That special interest has been formally recognized in a memorandum of understanding that I had the pleasure of signing with the leaders of the Union of B.C. Municipalities on March 22. The memorandum of understanding acknowledges that local governments do have a special role to play in negotiations as elected governments, as representatives of local communities, and it outlines issues on which local governments will be consulted. If we are going to ensure that treaty settlements succeed, we must take these steps, and more. This government is committed to taking those steps to ensure that the negotiation process is inclusive and represents the interests of all in this province. It is a strong commitment we have made politically. It is a commitment that in this act carries the requirement of law.
In developing the B.C. Treaty Commission, we are very proud of the fact that we are breaking new ground. The task force whose report gave rise to the recommendation of a Treaty Commission made it very clear that we needed a made-in-B.C. process; simply adopting another model from another jurisdiction would not succeed. That is indeed what this act contains: a process made in B.C. that will serve the interests of British Columbians, that reflects our commitment to build a new relationship with first nations in this province and that takes account of the peculiar circumstances this province finds itself in as one of the few jurisdictions in North America in which these issues have not been addressed through treaty negotiations.
[4:15]
There are many milestones as we walk together on the path towards a more just and honourable resolution of these issues. When we as a government announced that we would proceed on the basis of recognizing certain inherent rights, it was one step along the road. The creation of the Treaty Commission and its enactment into legislation are other important steps along the road. But make no mistake: it is not a short road. It is a long road, and there will be difficulties along the way. We must work together as British Columbians and as legislators to ensure that those steps are taken judiciously and with certainty as we try to achieve our common goal of achieving that new relationship.
The costs of leaving these issues unresolved have been high for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in this province. One doesn't have to look very far to see the evidence of those costs. They can be counted in the continued poverty and unemployment in aboriginal communities. They can be seen in the conflict and litigation that has built up over the years between aboriginal peoples and governments, and in the tension and confrontation that has sometimes been experienced between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. They are evidenced in the continued economic uncertainty and the loss of investment in the province that has been a legacy of this conflict. I'm sure members are aware of the Price Waterhouse study done for the federal government suggesting that as much as $1 billion was not coming in to this province in investment because of the uncertainty around these issues.
The people of British Columbia have made it abundantly clear that they want this matter resolved. They have told us that they want to get on with the business of negotiating treaty settlements with first nations. What do we hope to achieve for the province as a whole through treaty negotiations? I think one thing we can hope to achieve is a resolution of many of the land use conflicts that exist between competing aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests and, flowing from that, a more stable economic climate that would help to increase employment and encourage investment dollars to flow into this province, as well as a reduction in social costs in the long run as aboriginal communities begin to break the cycle of poverty and dependence.
The growth of self-reliant aboriginal economies and financially vibrant first nation communities must be our ultimate goal, a goal that will not only benefit aboriginal communities economically but will benefit all British Columbians. When I was in Terrace recently speaking with the chamber of commerce, I made the point to them -- and they made the point back to me -- about how much economic activity within that community involves purchases and transactions by aboriginal people. How much better the community of Terrace would be if the aboriginal peoples in that area were economically self-sufficient. If their community is more economically vibrant, then more money will be circulating not only in the aboriginal communities but in the community of Terrace. Through partnership and cooperation, there is much to be gained in this process for all British Columbians.
But this does not mean, as I say, that the process will be an easy one. There will be tough bargaining ahead. As a government we have made it clear that our role in treaty negotiations must be to represent the interests of all British Columbians and to ensure that the interests of non-aboriginal peoples are protected in the process. We have therefore made it very clear as we enter these negotiations that private property is not on the table, and that the interests of non-aboriginal parties must and will be respected. So there will be tough bargaining, but the bargaining that takes place must also be in good faith and must be based on a recognition of the history of this province and of the failure to address longstanding aboriginal rights.
We have no illusions that the course of action we've embarked upon is going to be easy or straightforward. Balancing the interests of the different parties involved, ensuring that members of the public and third parties are consulted and informed, and striving to develop solutions that are truly fair and just for all are enormously difficult tasks. I think they are tasks that will require the cooperation of all of us in British Columbia, and hopefully they are tasks that can rise above and beyond the normal cut-and-thrust of partisan debate.
But I believe it is the right course in British Columbia. For the first time ever in the history of this province we are beginning to address fundamental issues of importance to aboriginal peoples. By moving
[ Page 6441 ]
forward toward the negotiation of just treaties with first nations, we can build a stronger, fairer and more prosperous British Columbia for all British Columbians.
The Treaty Commission Act, together with the federal act and the summit resolution, will ensure that we have an effective and enduring process to help us attain that goal.
V. Anderson: I rise to speak on the Treaty Commission Act. Much will be said this week about it being another very important week in the history of British Columbia. It is important for many reasons, not least of which will be the Treaty Commission Act -- a very significant step in the thousands of years of indigenous people's history in what we now call Canada.
In my community of Marpole, the Marpole midden is but one of the many historic testimonies to those who have inhabited these lands and these waters for generations untold. The history of these people has only begun to be discovered and written. The depth and breadth of this history is still beyond our imagination. The Treaty Commission Act is but one more small and very significant step to discover the past and move from the present to the future.
Part of the treaty's significance is that now we are choosing, however hesitantly perhaps, to move together as one people who share a common landscape. It will not be easy. Within the land where we exist together, there are over 200 years of interaction, both friendly and unfriendly, as the varying cultures met but never really came together.
According to at least one history called "Indian Land Claims in British Columbia," and I quote: "The year was 1785, and on the coast of British Columbia the Indian economy was thriving." This describes the original contact with the aboriginal people of this area. In 1774, British Columbia had been: "discovered" by a Spanish vessel. By 1775 the Indians were trading with the strangers from afar, never envisioning that these strangers had come not just to trade but also to usurp and take control of the aboriginal place of being. This historic and stable native way of life was overturned, and tobacco, alcohol, smallpox and other unknown diseases ravaged the unsuspecting population.
Two hundred years later tobacco, alcohol and `white men's diseases' still ravage the people. Yet in spite of it all, the first nations people persevered, survived, and with renewed pride stand today with faith and dignity. Perhaps there is a difference today, as native and white cultures meet one another. Today we acknowledge that we do not understand each other, yet with respect we undertake to learn from each other how to share the created and creative space, not only now but especially for the children of the future.
Under royal charter in 1843 the Hudson's Bay Co. with James Douglas acting on behalf of the Crown and the company, founded Fort Victoria on the island where we now meet. The purpose was to trade in furs, to attract settlers and to establish a Crown colony. The British Empire was expanding. The citizens of the land were not conquered, nor did they fight. Rather, they were victimized and pushed aside, eventually into "reserves."
The United Church of Canada, to which I belong, has formally apologized for our historical participation in this victimization. Whether our errors were conscious or unconscious, they were errors. Ignorance can never be an excuse. Even following our apology, the misunderstanding continues. We continue to speak, if not with "forked tongues," at least with different tongues, from vastly different perspectives and often with very different meanings for the same words.
It has been pointed out that it was the whites, not the Indians who coined the term land claim to describe the Indian grievances over the many injustices that natives endured. Even today, land claim means quite different things to those of aboriginal and non-aboriginal societies. In a few short words it is hard to describe the difference. But let me try, as I understand it at this moment.
For the non-aboriginal the term land claims is about the possession and control of and the right to use and exploit a given geographical area that may be bought and sold by an owner. The land is a thing to be used for the benefit of the owner, to be expended on present well-being. For the aboriginal person the land is not a possession. It is not something to be owned, but rather an expression of the spirit shared with those who are the creatures of the spirit, that each separately and together might enjoy and serve the purposes of the spirit in this land. The land, water and sky -- the environment -- is the womb of life. Damage the womb and life dies. Care for the womb and life is reborn eternally.
Back from my soliloquy to historical representations. "All Indians in B.C. are entirely self-supported and self-supporting," said Matthew Baillie Begbie, the first chief justice of the united colony of British Columbia. As the first nations were deprived of their traditional means of being self-supporting, the problems began and are still with us to this day.
The Treaty Commission Act is one small and very important part of an attempt to rectify wrongs. It is not perfect, but so far it is the best we have been able to agree upon. At least it is a possible step forward, rather than another step backward. However, we can learn from looking backward and reminding ourselves that in 1763 a royal proclamation signed by King George III prohibited any alienation of Indian lands without the consent of the Crown. Even English law had a justice which must still be respected, though over the years it has been respected more in the breach than in real life decision-making. From that time to the present, no resolution or real attempt at resolution has been undertaken by all parties concerned -- that is, until most recently.
And even now there is little agreement on how we can together move into the future. For every suggestion there are countless numbers of counter-suggestions, and behind it all two processes of decision-making confuse those who care. One process is legislative, and the other process is by consensus. One process is claim and counter-claim, and the other process is growing consensus by patiently meeting, caring and sharing.
[ Page 6442 ]
One process tends to be dominated by a concern about who will lose out, and the other by how all can share and benefit equally. One process tends to ask how few the pie can be divided among, while the other asks how many can have enough, at least for meaningful survival together.
But I digress again, so let us be reminded that in 1867, in section 91(24) of the British North America Act, from which we trace much of our legal authority, the Dominion government had responsibility for and jurisdiction over Indians and lands reserved for the Indians. So there it is: both a blessing and a curse on future generations. In November of 1872, Lieutenant-Colonel J.W. Powell was appointed as Canada's superintendent of Indian affairs in British Columbia, and so began another confused chapter of administrative bungling which continues to the present day.
[4:30]
The booklet entitled "Indian Land Claims in British Columbia" highlights some of the other significant touch-points. Let me quote a few: 1876 -- "The Governor General of Canada, Lord Dufferin, had made a speech in Victoria" -- here in this very city -- "calling for the recognition of aboriginal rights." 1877 -- "'Indian rights to soil in British Columbia have never been extinguished,' the Minister of the Interior said in a telegram from Ottawa." 1884 -- "The Indian Act is amended to outlaw the potlatch." 1887 -- "Haida Indians say they own the whole of the Queen Charlotte Islands." 1891 -- "The Nisga'a begin their own newspaper." 1906 -- "The decision by Salish chiefs meeting in Cowichan to send a delegation to London to present their grievance to King Edward VII; namely, a petition that their Indian title had never been extinguished." 1907 -- "The formation of the Nisga'a Land Committee." 1909 -- "The Cowichan Indians submitted a further petition to the King." And so the process continued until the present time. Claim and counter-claim and no resolution, but the increasing uncertainty of all concerned.
Then the Constitution Act of 1982 included a section recognizing and affirming the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and M�tis peoples; but what the term treaty rights means is still unclear. However, it is clear that meaning cannot be imposed on people; it must be discovered by mutual consultation.
The Treaty Commission Act is striving to provide one way to discover meaning between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in a way that may benefit all of them in mutual cooperation. The act is not, nor is it intended to be, a quick fix. As I said previously, it is not a perfect tool. It has limitations and what some say are inconsistencies, in that it gives too much power to a few and not enough to many. Some may believe that the act implies trust where trust has not been experienced, and that it creates suspicion as to the motives of all concerned. After all, it is a very human document, and perhaps this is its strength as well as its weakness.
To use a clich�, it is now necessary to let nature take its course. Like the discovery of Canada itself this new exploration will be a discovery of the soul of Canada; a discovery not of what people of Canada possess, but of what the people of Canada are -- creatures of a great spirit who have the privilege and opportunity to share a common space in peace and in harmony, or to continue to divide and conquer so that all are equally bereft.
Perhaps I overstate, but I don't think so. Like each and every aboriginal person I have ever met, I can only speak for myself. Others will speak for themselves and in the committee stage of this bill we will raise concerns and seek assurances. Finally we will go forward in faith on whatever path we choose. As for myself, I will support this significant venture and pray that, guided by the spirit of creation, we will be led together to discover and to walk in the path of harmony and peace.
J. Weisgerber: It's a genuine pleasure for me to stand today and speak in support of Bill 22 and to encourage British Columbians to look at the Treaty Commission -- the opportunities that it has, the risks inherent in the process -- and to consider it. I'm going to direct my comments toward support of the legislation, and I encourage British Columbians generally to support the Treaty Commission and the work that it's setting out to do.
As we just heard, the history in British Columbia with native issues is a long one. The questions of aboriginal land claims and treaties are older than British Columbia is as a jurisdiction. We know that Governor Douglas started with treaty negotiations, or at least sought to reach arrangements here on Vancouver Island. We know also that the government of England, of which British Columbia at that time was a colony, withdrew financial support and so started a tug of war between governments that exists today over who should have the responsibility for the costs associated with land claims.
Indeed there has been a long history in British Columbia of debate about whether or not there exists a legitimacy to land claims and, if there is legitimacy to land claims, who should have the responsibility for the costs associated with them. These questions continue today. These are questions that have to be addressed by the province of British Columbia and the federal government in Ottawa. I think it's pretty clear, through the Constitution Act and through the agreements by which British Columbia joined Canada, that the responsibility for the costs associated with land claim settlements rests with Ottawa. I believe it's important now for the government to stake out that position, to state clearly for British Columbians that they recognize it, and will insist that the federal government in Ottawa live up to its obligations to settle land claims and accept the costs associated with land claims.
There has been a strategy of denial in British Columbia over the last 125 or 130 years. Successive governments have looked at land claims, at the enormous complexity in British Columbia and at the very serious complexities to resolution of land claims. They have looked at the fact that there are 200 bands or more in British Columbia and a whole series of tribal councils and languages. Governments have almost always come to the conclusion that the best strategy to deal with the problem is to deny that it exists. This was the strategy adopted by the early Liberal government, the Conservative government, the coalition govern-
[ Page 6443 ]
ments, the Social Credit government and the NDP government in 1972-75. It has consistently been the history in British Columbia, and it has been a strategy adopted by all political parties in British Columbia.
It was the strategy in place when I had the privilege in 1988 of being appointed Minister of Native Affairs. It was the strategy that we adopted through 1989. We maintained that there was no issue there to discuss. If there was, it was in our minds clearly a federal responsibility and shouldn't involve the province, and we tended to avoid it.
In 1989 we undertook an exercise that I don't think has received the recognition it deserves. The government established the Premier's Advisory Council on Native Affairs. It was anticipated that the committee would travel around British Columbia and meet with aboriginal groups -- bands and tribal councils -- and identify ways in which the government could address the serious economic and social issues that we knew existed in Indian communities around the province. We believed at that time that we could find resolutions and solutions, and that we could work with native communities to find ways to deal with those issues outside of the native land claims process.
The committee was structured with three government members, three members from the community at large and three aboriginal people. I think it's worthwhile recognizing that those people were Premier Vander Zalm, me and Harold Long, the MLA for the district of Mackenzie, from Powell River. There were three individuals from the aboriginal community: Dan Hanuse, an elder with the Nimpkish band, a logger and a business person; Robert Louie, a lawyer and chief of the Westbank band; and Margaret Vickers, an educator from the Kitkatla band. We also brought in three other people: Mary Saunders, QC, a lawyer from Vancouver, originally from Merritt; Dr. Paul Gallagher from Vancouver Community College; and a Japanese gentleman with Diawa Securities, Mr. Watanabe.
We were an interesting group, and we travelled around British Columbia. We went to communities from Dease Lake to Kitimat to Port Alberni to downtown Vancouver and through the interior. We met with Indian bands, tribal councils and individual organizations around the province. It became increasingly clear to us, as we travelled and met with groups around the province, that if we were going to address the root of the social and economic problems, we had to deal with the land claim question. I think it should be a particular tribute to the three aboriginal people who agreed to sit on that committee, because there was a lot of cynicism when the committee was formed, and the aboriginal people who agreed to take part took a significant political risk in being involved in the process. But as you might expect, they were determined, patient and consistent in their encouragement of the rest of the committee to recognize the importance of dealing with land claims. So again I want to recognize the contribution made by that small group of people.
In 1990 the committee made its final recommendations to cabinet, and they were accepted without any modifications, without any constraints at all. The entire report of the committee was recommended to government, and it was accepted by cabinet. Essentially, it started British Columbia on the road to negotiating land claims. After the receipt of the recommendations of the Premier's Advisory Council on Native Affairs, I then had the privilege of signing the Nisga'a framework agreement which, for the first time in the history of British Columbia, involved the province in the negotiation of land claims. Also following from that undertaking was the decision to participate with the First Nations Summit and the federal government in the B.C. Claims Task Force. We were then determined to find a made-in-B.C. way of dealing with land claims. Again I want to acknowledge the work done on that task force on behalf of the province by Tony Sheridan, who was at that time an assistant deputy minister with the Ministry of Native Affairs; and Allan Williams, QC, former Attorney General and someone who has for many years been involved in land and aboriginal questions, and who made a very significant contribution to the work of the Claims Task Force.
[4:45]
The recommendations of the Claims Task Force are in fact represented today in this legislation. It's fair to say that while I support, with some enthusiasm, the legislation to establish a treaty commission, I do so recognizing that there are some questions that should be asked and should be dealt with. I hope it won't be construed as taking away from the initiative, when we get into committee stage of this bill, that we look to the minister for answers to questions that have not been dealt with so far.
It's fair to say, hon. Speaker, having entered into this next step, that it is in my mind one of the most important long-term issues in B.C. I genuinely feel that British Columbia needs to resolve land claims and to put this issue into perspective; we've got to put it behind us, as it were. That doesn't mean we should ignore it. It simply means it's an issue that's been here as long as British Columbia has been a province, and it's something that we've got to work our way beyond. But as we see the establishment of a commission and the expansion of the negotiation of land claims, we've got to recognize that there are some responsibilities that flow from this.
First of all, we've got to understand -- and I want to understand clearly -- that the commission has a responsibility to ensure that British Columbians are well informed about the process of land claims negotiations. I think that the commission has an obligation to ensure that each and every British Columbian knows what's going on, knows what kind of negotiations are going on and knows the details of those negotiations. I think it's absolutely essential to this process that the claims be laid out on the table and that everyone understand the position that the claimants are bringing to the table. I think it's important for us as British Columbians to know the position being taken by the federal government, and I think it's particularly important that British Columbians know the position being taken to the negotiations by our negotiators -- by the province.
[ Page 6444 ]
Where does the province start in the negotiations? What are our fundamental positions? Where do we stand on these issues? Only if we understand where all the parties started from will we be able to accept the compromise that settlements ultimately will be. Surely governments will understand, from having had the experience of Meech Lake and, more recently and more painfully, the experience of the Charlottetown accord, that if you reach agreements behind closed doors, then bring them out and expect people to embrace and endorse them, the opposite will happen. Some people will look at it and say you gave too much. Others will say that you didn't get enough. There will generally be rejection of agreements that aren't fully understood as they're developed.
So I am going to look to the minister, to the government and to the commission to ensure that the intent and the spirit of the recommendations made by the Claims Task Force are lived up to and adhered to. If there is one single issue that I think is critical to the successful resolution of land claims in British Columbia, it has to be the willingness and the courage of government to lay its position out, to acknowledge when it changes its position and to explain to British Columbians why it has conceded on certain points. But most important at this stage of negotiations, the government has an obligation to tell us its opening position. It and all parties have an obligation to let British Columbians and Canadians know what their opening position is.
Furthermore, as the minister touched on a couple of times in his comments, these are going to be very tough negotiations. They should be very tough negotiations. We are talking about an issue that affects every British Columbian. The decision has been made to not allow British Columbians as individuals or as interest groups to access the negotiating table, so that puts a particular responsibility on the province to represent the interests of all British Columbians, as the minister knows.
But I want to also stress that you have a particular obligation and responsibility to the people who aren't at the table. Aboriginal people will be there, and they'll be good negotiators. I know they're good negotiators. You know they're good negotiators, because you've been in the job for a year and a half. But the majority of British Columbians and the interests of communities, individuals and industries are not going to be at the table. They're not going to have an opportunity to speak for themselves; they are going to depend on the province to speak for them.
So I'm going to start now, and I will continue to press the government to be willing to stand up and recognize that it has that particular responsibility to those so-called third parties that aren't at the table. If the government is unwilling to do that, then it has an obligation to allow those third parties access to speak to themselves. You can't say, "We won't let you come to the table," unless you're willing to speak on their behalf and to let them know what you're saying on their behalf. If the government takes that tack and follows through with the kind of negotiation that is fair but obviously tough -- a lot of important issues are at stake -- then I think there's reason for optimism. There's reason to believe we can move into a time in our history that we can all look back on and say it was during this period that B.C. finally came to grips with the land claims question. We not only came to grips with it, we settled it in a way that was fair for aboriginal people and for all other British Columbians.
This government has a big responsibility. It's easy for us to say that we have an obligation to represent all British Columbians, but it is particularly important that the province understand its responsibilities to the people who are not going to have access to the table. It's particularly important for the province to relay, on an ongoing basis, the tone and substance of the negotiations and to open up the process to observation. If we do that, I genuinely believe that we have a better than odds-on chance of finding a fair and acceptable resolution. But I'm troubled that the government so far seems to have made little progress in its negotiations on cost-sharing agreements. It seems to focus on moving the claims negotiation process forward. One is not more important and shouldn't be done exclusive of the other.
British Columbia has an obligation. I'm concerned that the actions and the statements of the Premier to date, both while he has been in government and particularly when he was in opposition, regarding the responsibility for land claims has jeopardized the interests of British Columbians. The Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, moved away from the traditional position of federal responsibility. He said that we wouldn't accept more than 25 percent of the cost. I said at that time that he had moved the starting point to 25 percent for British Columbia. The question then was: how much more than 25 percent would Ottawa demand from British Columbia? Now we understand that that's exactly what happened. We're now talking about B.C. being called on to provide the land and the resources, and the negotiations are around what share of the cash Ottawa should put up.
I don't want to pour cold water on this important undertaking, but it is important today and as we go through this process to understand the difficulties and to recognize the implications and the potential cost for British Columbians, and the need for this province to negotiate in the interests of British Columbia with both Ottawa and the claimant groups. If the government is prepared to do that, then the government can be assured of my support. But the government can also be assured that I and my caucus are going to be watching over their shoulder. We are going to be concerned with the way this issue is approached, and we're going to be concerned about the impact of land claim settlements on B.C.
Let me close by saying that I believe the establishment of a treaty commission, through this piece of legislation, is perhaps a small but important step in the resolution of an enormous question. It's an important step, and one that we should recognize as such. Hon. Speaker, I'll close by again confirming that I believe this is a good and useful piece of legislation. I think there have been some quality people appointed to the commission; and that, again, augurs well for the process in the future.
[ Page 6445 ]
G. Wilson: It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege to speak to Bill 22, the Treaty Commission Act, which is a historic first step for the province, for any British Columbia government and for the people of the first nations of B.C.
On June 28, 1991, when the report came forward outlining the task force's recommendations on how we should proceed in treaty negotiations, as the Leader of the Liberal Party I spoke out in favour of that report. I said that that approach would provide a recognized and accepted way for us to negotiate what are going to be very difficult, trying and extremely complex questions with respect to the resolution of aboriginal land claims in British Columbia.
We watched with interest as the report of the task force was put into a more legal context with the signing of the British Columbia Treaty Commission agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and representatives of the first nations. We certainly cannot isolate or separate that agreement document, as the minister has suggested, from the Bill 22 that is before us today. Bill 22 is intrinsically tied to that treaty agreement, and some might argue that a portion of the agreement essentially obliged the government to undertake this legislation.
[5:00]
That is outlined under section 2 of the agreement, in which it says: "The principal shall establish the commission as follows...." With respect to the provincial government, section 2(1)(b) says: "The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs shall introduce legislation to the British Columbia Legislature to establish the commission as a legal entity to carry out the purposes of this agreement." Let's be very clear that that's what this document is. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs undertook to introduce legislation to provide this document with authority in the province of British Columbia, so that the process for treaty negotiations that was agreed to by the first minister and aboriginal leadership of this province and the Prime Minister of Canada, without debate or negotiation in this House, could commence. I underscore the word "process."
Certainly the words of the Leader of the Third Party are wise and true where he says that we must put in perspective what we're doing here. It is very important that we put what we're doing both in context and perspective, so that we do not create unrealistic expectations among aboriginal people, who may believe that finally there is going to be a relatively quick and easy solution to outstanding grievances with respect to land. It is also important that we, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, do not create for the non-aboriginal community undeserved fear as to what this process is all about.
This is not giving the key to aboriginal people and saying: "Now you can move forward. We are unlocking the door to your land claims. The process will be easy, without hard and difficult negotiations." So there are two sides to this debate. On the one hand, we have to say that for aboriginal people, yes, this is a step forward, because there is finally an accepted process in place to get the negotiations underway. On the other hand, for the non-aboriginal people of this province we must say that there is no reason for fear in what is proposed here.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding, fear and tension in this province today between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people because in the past there have been negotiations undertaken by representatives of government, both federal and provincial, on behalf of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, that have kept both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people out of the process to a degree. As such, the population at large doesn't know what's going on. They don't know what the status is. They don't understand the relationship between the establishment of this Treaty Commission Act, for example, and an aboriginal fisheries commission, an aboriginal fisheries strategy, a strategy that is currently underway with respect to joint resource projects that may be undertaken as a joint stewardship program in the province of British Columbia. Many people don't understand how this is going to impact on the ongoing discussions with the Nisga'a. They don't understand how this might impact on the legal case that is now before the courts in the province of British Columbia, because there has never been a clear articulation of process. There has never been a clear statement from this government as to where they stand on these issues and how they approach these issues in terms of their position vis-�-vis not just the land issue -- which is a big one, an important one and one that Bill 22 addresses -- but a much larger and much more complex question: the one with respect to jurisdiction over the land once the land issue is resolved.
It is not enough for us to simply say that in the treaty negotiations we now have a process by which we can put in place some kind of standard for negotiation. We now have a commission that will attest to the readiness of the first nations that come forward and wish to have both their specific and comprehensive claims reviewed. But we have to recognize that there is also an outstanding question here with respect to jurisdiction over land -- the so-called third-order-of-government question. That was discussed and debated and agreed to by members of various governments -- the first ministers and the Prime Minister -- in Charlottetown. It was brought forward in a national referendum and was rejected by both non-aboriginal people and aboriginal people in this country. So there is an outstanding question as to where we proceed on that. That's a very important question because the question of jurisdiction over land is equally as important as the question of the territory itself. Through this process we can now start to isolate and identify more specifically and more clearly where those outstanding claims may be. And through this process we will now say that the aboriginal people themselves must first address and solve the overlapping claims questions, which are equally as complex and difficult for those people to deal with. We must also recognize that this commission may indeed be required to have -- and yet this legislation does not clearly state how it will -- some kind of facilitating prospect with respect to how we actually work out the jurisdictional question.
[ Page 6446 ]
If you look at the definitions within this bill, we immediately have a problem with the definition of "first nation," which is: "...means an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people within their traditional territory in British Columbia...." There are a substantial number of aboriginal people, indeed the majority, who live outside of traditional lands. They are non-status, and this bill does nothing for non-status aboriginal people in this province. Furthermore, there is some concern with respect to the process established for readiness. While we as an official opposition may support this legislation -- and we do -- we have the obligation and responsibility to speak out with respect to concerns of non-aboriginal people in the province of British Columbia. But we also have an obligation and a duty to speak out with respect to concerns held by aboriginal people in this province about this treaty process and how they will be served by it, and for those aboriginal people who have not bought into this agreement, how their concerns are going to be fairly and adequately and legally addressed with respect to this government and the Treaty Commission. It says here that the first nations will be those people who are "...within their...territory in British Columbia, that has been mandated by its constituents to enter into treaty negotiations on their behalf," with Canada and British Columbia. Not all groups are represented. Not all groups are mandated. Groups will come and groups will go as we start to see how this process unfolds.
For those of us who have studied this, and who have met with aboriginal leaders across this province, and had an opportunity to meet with aboriginal people outside of the leadership.... I think there is a duty and obligation for all elected members to listen not only to the leadership that negotiates on their behalf, but to listen to the people. We learned in the Charlottetown accord that the leadership -- both aboriginal and non-aboriginal -- was totally out of touch with the people. It didn't represent the people of this country, and it clearly didn't represent the aboriginal majority when they had a chance to and did not ratify the agreements that were there. So we, as elected members, must listen to the people.
We support this as a process. We supported the Claims Task Force when it made its recommendations, and we said: "Yes, this is a good first step; it's a good way to proceed. If we can build some model in which consensus can be achieved, let's get behind this and let's support it." Let us make sure, as we go through this bill, that we do not shy away from questioning this government and this minister. It is only this government and this minister who can answer for this commission and not the other members of this commission, whom I would dearly love to question equally. It would be nice to have the federal government represented here to answer questions on how their role and proportion is going to work, given that we are going to be involving some very significant costs to the taxpayers of both British Columbia and Canada with respect to this process. Also, it would be nice for us to have the opportunity to discuss with the aboriginal leadership their commitment with respect to the long-term process that will be involved.
We have an opportunity in committee to question this minister thoroughly and without reserve on every detail of this agreement. If we are to be an effective, constructive and worthy opposition, it is important that we do that. We will go through this document clause by clause, and we will ask this minister why this bill differs from this agreement, because it does. We will be asking this minister why this bill has greater latitude and leniency than this agreement, because it does. We will be asking this minister: if there is a challenge to the issues that arise, which will prevail -- this bill or this agreement? This agreement has the signature of the Premier of this province and the Prime Minister of this country, and this bill will have the status of law from the Legislative Assembly of this province. If the details are not worked to the mutual satisfaction of all parties involved, that is an interesting contradiction. That's a point we will want to hear from this minister on as we get into committee.
As we go through this bill in detail, as we start to question in committee stage, and as we may propose amendments, we will do so in the most constructive manner possible. We are not attempting to wave a red flag and say that this is a process we don't support. We are saying that this is a very serious and important initiative. It is one that clearly we have to get behind in order to make it work to resolve outstanding claims.
It also means that because of the sensitivities that exist in the province among aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, and because of the potential for misunderstanding of words we may use or directions we may put forward, we must not shy away for fear that our questions may be misinterpreted. When we do question, when we do move forward and present amendments, we do so not to try and detract from this process, but to embrace this process, to strengthen it, to make it more worthy, to make it more constructive and to make it more workable for the people of British Columbia.
Let me also say that I have an underlying fear, and I want to put that out as we look at the principle of this bill today, because it echoes some of the fears that I heard from aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. I believe that when you get down to the context of family and to the issues that affect parents in this country -- whether they're aboriginal or non-aboriginal -- we all look out for the welfare of our children and future generations of Canadians, no matter who those Canadians may be. I have an underlying fear that we are becoming so narrowly focused, in what is clearly an outstanding grievance, on the technicalities of trying to deal with issues in relation to outstanding claims, within the context of legalities that we are trying to deal with through negotiation -- not through litigation, which is good, and I commend this minister for attempting to achieve that -- that we are losing sight of the larger, global perspective. As sure as I stand in this House today, we are headed toward the next global migration. This country, Canada, and this province, British Columbia, will be attractive to the peoples of the world because we have livable space. The question of
[ Page 6447 ]
jurisdiction over that space is absolutely critical if we are going to accommodate that next global migration, if we are going to take advantage of it and if we are going to prosper as a people when it occurs. We cannot, and simply must not, start to look at the prospect of resolution on the question that redefines Canadians, when that definition denotes that a Canadian is an immigrant with seniority, and seniority rights apply. Let us say that in resolution of this, we must move toward a recognition that all peoples in this country are equal -- every Canadian equal to every other Canadian -- regardless of their race, colour, creed, language, religion or gender. I believe that that is embraced in the hearts of every Canadian across the country, if not espoused by them.
[5:15]
As we negotiate this settlement, let us recognize that we are negotiating to try and deliver ourselves from the indiscretions and grievances that have been so clearly articulated by my colleague from Vancouver-Langara. But let us not, in the resolution of that question, box ourselves into Canada 1991, which will be so constricted and rigidly structured on the basis of these agreements and negotiations that 100 years from now new Canadians -- the new face of Canada -- will be faced with having to try and deal with the resolutions we put in place today, as we try to put in place resolutions of the agreements put in place by previous legislators in Canada when they adopted the BNA Act and took over the fiduciary obligation and responsibility for aboriginal people.
Hon. Speaker, this bill is a very important first step. It is an opportunity to move us forward to long-term negotiation and settlement. It is an opportunity for all of us to come together to find a just solution to these problems. It is also a potential trap that we may fall into if we are not very careful to be cognizant of the long-term goal we are attempting to reach. If we move forward on this bill -- and we will -- we must do so with a recognition that we can only make it work if all British Columbians are able to have a clear understanding of the process and the details of negotiations as they proceed. The Leader of the Third Party said that if we are to make this process work, all British Columbians must know the details of negotiations as they unfold. I could not agree more. We cannot have negotiation in isolation. We cannot have negotiation, either through this commission or by direct access to government, that is not open to public scrutiny and understanding, so that there can be public acceptance.
I commend this minister, because I believe that he has taken a bold first step. I commend this government in terms of their opportunity to move forward to try and build the bridges so desperately needed. But I caution this minister: we must be extremely careful as we proceed, because the good intention that is there can lock us into long-term conflict if we are not very careful about making sure that as an underlying premise to any negotiations, to any solution, first and foremost the basis of equality must be there for all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike.
We will scrutinize this bill in third reading, and the minister should be aware that we will not shy away from scrutiny, no matter what the plans of this government may be. It is important, when we do look at this bill, that the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people of British Columbia have confidence that the treaty negotiation process through this commission will work not only to the satisfaction of Canadians and British Columbians today, but to the satisfaction of future generations, who will be able to look back upon this day and say that finally there was a process of resolution that was long-term and in the interests of all Canadians.
G. Janssen: British Columbia takes a significant step today toward negotiating a modern-day treaty with the original owners of this great province. The act will give the commission the permanency and stability it needs to effectively carry out the important long-term mandate it has been given. We have pledged to end 125 years of injustice in British Columbia through the negotiation of just and honourable settlements with the first nations in this province, and to move forward to building a stronger, fairer and more prosperous province for all that share it.
The Treaty Commission has been given the task of overseeing the negotiations of modern-day treaties with first nations in British Columbia and with others who share the land with them. The core duties of the commission will include assessing the readiness of the parties to negotiate, encouraging timely negotiations, providing funds to first nations for those negotiations, providing dispute resolution services and maintaining a public record of the status of those negotiations so that all British Columbians will know where the process is, where it is going, and hopefully, the end result.
The opposition wants to know where the government stands -- what the government's position is. That is like putting forth preconditions before negotiations start. When you talk about reaching a decision by consensus, you don't go forward first and say: "This is the position that I have, and I want you to reach a similar position through consensus."
The B.C. Treaty Commission sends a signal that the provincial and federal governments and the governments representing first peoples in this province are ready to negotiate, to reach a settlement by consensus -- to all sit down and say: "We, after all these years, have finally reached a stage in our evolution where we are ready to stop what has been going on all these years, since Europeans first set foot in British Columbia." We are moving forward in a process that will lead to a model for treaty negotiations, and those treaty negotiations will not be same with each nation of aboriginal peoples that we negotiate with. Make no assumptions about that, for there are many positions from many people in the first nations.
There will be a method to monitor and oversee the negotiations and report on progress, and it will operate at arm's length to make sure that all people involved in the negotiations have the tools necessary to complete those negotiations. It will make sure that all the representative people and third-party interests are involved, and that their positions are represented at that table. Everyone must have input and play a role in
[ Page 6448 ]
these very important negotiations, for if they fail, we fail as a people.
Much has been said about the economics of not having a treaty. But there are also human and social costs of not having a negotiated settlement with the aboriginal peoples of this province. Before the Europeans came here, the native peoples were a proud nation. They had a sophisticated lifestyle, a highly developed culture and religion, and rights among their peoples both individually and collectively. The original owners of this land welcomed the Europeans. They offered to share what they had. Native people today still have a tremendous tolerance toward the injustice that has been inflicted upon them over all these years. They continue to share and welcome Europeans to their land, and we continue to plunder. Over the years we have taken away their religion. We took away their children. We returned them -- sometimes -- to their parents when they could not communicate in their own language. We took away their language and culture. Worst of all, we took away the respect and dignity that they enjoyed before the Europeans came here.
When they went out and exercised their rights to aboriginal hunting and fishing and when they attempted to feed their families in the manner in which they had lived before Europeans came here, we admonished them for that. We took them to the courts. We put them on reserves and we restricted their ability to feed their own families. This set of negotiations and this act will finally take the negotiations out of the courtroom. We have been supplying millions of dollars over 125 years to make lawyers rich in this province, and to take up valuable court time. Hopefully, this will end that process. We deserve -- and the native peoples deserve -- a better system than the court system to reach the conclusion. We must respect one another and we must recognize that we all have a position and rights, and we all owe our children something better than lengthy court cases and disrespect for one another.
It has taken a long time to get to the stage we have reached. We must not let this opportunity slip away. All three levels of government -- native, federal and provincial -- recognize that. It's a small step in the right direction and a small step down a very long road. We will not reach that consensus overnight or before the term of this administration -- or perhaps even the next administration -- is over. There will be roadblocks, setbacks and delays. But after all these years, we are taking that first step and moving forward to an equitable and just settlement among first nations, the federal government and the provincial government.
Hon. Speaker, this act should receive speedy passage so that we can take that first step, recognize our responsibilities and the mistakes that we as European settlers made when we came to this great province, and give back to the native people their dignity and respect.
C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I arise today to speak to Bill 22, the Treaty Commission Act. I thank my caucus and other members of the opposition for allowing me to make this personal statement.
In 1972 I was privileged to introduce into the Yukon legislature "Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow," a statement written by the native peoples of the Yukon, which prompted the federal government to initiate negotiations on one of the first land claims in Canada. Today, in 1993, final settlement in the Yukon is almost completed.
In the Yukon there are 12 bands; in British Columbia there are 196 bands. We have a long, long road ahead of us, and hopefully we'll do it together. This bill lays in place a process by which we can bring the parties to the table to find political solutions to problems which must be solved -- not in the courts, but by negotiation, compromise and accommodation. If all Canadians are going to continue to live harmoniously in this country, it is essential that we in this Legislature fulfil our dual responsibility to the first nations who live in exclusive enclaves and to the rest of the citizens of our 75 constituencies. We must find solutions by reason, by common sense and by understanding -- not by confrontation, by court battles or by mounting the barricades.
I chose to live in this country when I was a young man, and I am grateful to Canada for affording me advantages that did not exist in the country I left behind. I have been reasonably successful. In the effort to become so, it took me many years to realize that there existed side by side in my new world another world -- that of the Indian people. Canada has given this immigrant opportunities that it has not afforded its own first peoples.
The last 21 years have seen an incredible change in every aspect of our lives, from our standard of living and our expectations to advances in science and technology. It is about time we resolved the differences that exist between Canada and its first peoples. If we are going to continue to live together to our mutual benefit and well-being, Bill 22, the Treaty Commission Act, gives us the vehicle to implement the change.
Twenty-one years ago I rose in the legislature of the Yukon and introduced the Yukon Native Brotherhood's position on Indian land claims: "Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow." It was a landmark in Canadian history and the settlement of Indian land claims. Today I am proud again to be part of a landmark decision with the introduction of Bill 22.
[5:30]
F. Gingell: I rise to speak for both myself and the members of the Liberal caucus who will not speak on second reading of this bill. I wish to advise everyone that our caucus supports Bill 22.
It is time -- in fact, it is over time -- for us to get on with the negotiation of land claims. There are many questions that will be dealt with in detail during committee stage. We do have questions that we need to have answered. We support in principle, however, the creation of this commission to assist the process in as timely a manner as possible.
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciated the comments that were made by the members opposite during the course of what I thought was a very productive and constructive debate.
[ Page 6449 ]
If I can speak for a second on a personal note, I must say that I have come to realize what a privilege it has been to be assigned this particular role in this government. It has been a privilege personally because of the experience I have had over the past year and a half learning a tremendous amount about the history and peoples of this province, in particular the first nations and aboriginal peoples. It's also a privilege because I believe this is an issue on which British Columbians as a whole wish to see a substantial change. I sensed in the debate today that there is a common purpose within this legislative chamber. I think it's a rare opportunity for a minister to be given a task in those circumstances, and it's one that I personally appreciate. I still can't quite figure out why I was awarded this opportunity, but I do view it as an award. However, I recognize that it's an award that comes with some cautions and costs and admonitions, and a good degree of responsibility. Speaking for both myself and the government, I want to say that we do not shrink from that responsibility. Indeed, we welcome it.
I thought the comments of members opposite about the history were tremendously helpful in providing an understanding of why this problem is one that requires resolution. I appreciated the comments of the members for Vancouver-Langara and Alberni with respect to that history. I also appreciated the Leader of the Third Party reminding us of some of the more recent political history. This is an effort that really must be understood in terms of its history, and we must learn from that history, both positive and negative, if we are to move forward.
In terms of some of the comments that were made, I'll just speak very generally. We'll have an opportunity in committee stage to get into some of the detail; I just thought I'd comment on some of the general points that were made. I appreciated the suggestion that we really need to work on public information in this area. I agree with members opposite that there has not been adequate communication on this issue. That point was made by a number of members. I recall the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast making that point, and the Leader of the Third Party as well. The Treaty Commission will have an important role in dispensing that information, but that will not relieve government of its responsibility to ensure that members of the public and particular constituencies are informed. That's part of the task we take on in making this process work.
Similarly, with respect to consultation, the Leader of the Third Party warned the government that the public needs to know where it stands on these issues, and I take that warning in the constructive spirit in which it was offered. As I outlined in my original speech, we have taken some concrete steps to do that. Part of it is to lay the groundwork so that we won't have confidentiality clauses like the one currently in the Nisga'a agreement; however, we won't revisit that history. But we can learn from history, both recent and past. We can also appreciate that there will be mistakes along the way and have been mistakes in the past. I appreciated the fact that the Leader of the Third Party had recently acknowledged some mistakes, even in his tenure, on some of these issues. So I hope we can work together in that human understanding that this is a process in which we can learn from each other and work to a better solution through a sharing of information, through criticism and through constructive resolve.
There was reference made by the Leader of the Third Party to the question of cost-sharing. I fully agree with him that that is an important issue, and one that cannot be put to one side -- it must be resolved. I appreciated his suggestion that the two issues, the process and the costs, must be resolved together. But he will be aware that, as a government, we have been involved in cost-sharing negotiations. I would also remind him that it was the previous Premier who made the statement that the province must bear a fair share for these settlements -- it's a courageous statement that I endorse. But I also concur that the federal government's primary jurisdiction must be recognized through any cost-sharing agreement reached. That is another issue that certainly will command the attention of the government in the months ahead.
There were a number of things mentioned by members about what the bill did not do. It's true, this is a process bill to establish a process that should help to guide us along the path. It doesn't solve the substantive issues or even provide us with a clear understanding of how those substantive issues might be resolved; it provides the framework and the process for the resolution of those substantive issues. I think it's important to recognize that. There's a danger of us not understanding. That doesn't mean there isn't an important role for us to play in debating those substantive issues; it's just that this particular mechanism does not aspire to resolve substantive issues. It aspires to provide the mechanism through which those substantive issues can be resolved. And similarly, it doesn't address certain constituencies. Reference was made to those aboriginal people in the province who may not identify with any particular traditional territory. That's true, this bill does not do that.
It's a good bill, and I've carried with me over the past year as a credo that the best is often the enemy of the good. We could, I suppose, try to write a bill that would right all the wrongs of the past -- and never have a bill. We have a bill that does some things and does them well, I think, but it doesn't do all things, and we must recognize that there is more to be done and other issues that must be addressed.
Reference was made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to the relationship between the bill and the agreement. We can certainly discuss that in the committee stage. The idea is for the bill to operate in association with the agreement; one informs the other. There is no intention for one to conflict with the other, but we can explore that issue in greater detail if you believe there is some cause for concern. I would be very happy to answer your questions on that.
In closing debate, I want to say that I am very encouraged by the fact that there is support throughout this chamber for this initiative. There is a lot of work to be done. I also accept the fact that the government bears a responsibility to answer many questions, and that there will be much criticism along the way. As I said
[ Page 6450 ]
earlier, I personally welcome that criticism and I think the government is ready to respond as well. With that I would like to move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 22, Treaty Commission Act, 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. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:39 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]