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)
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 10, Number 25
[ Page 7027 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like the House to recognize the passing of a former member of the House. Herbert Bruch, a Social Credit pioneer, passed away recently at age 73. Herb was a founder of the Social Credit Party on Vancouver Island. He was elected in 1953, in W.A.C. Bennett's first victory, and served Esquimalt until 1972. He was a Deputy Speaker of the House and a national president of the Social Credit Party. Herb was a strong advocate for the construction of ferries, to bolster shipbuilding in British Columbia. He was also a former fruit farmer and businessman in the Okanagan. He is survived by his wife Marie and eight children. I would ask the House to send condolences to his family.
Hon. B. Barlee: We on this side of the House regret the passing of Herb Bruch. He was a pioneer who was certainly representative of the interior, and he had a background in the farming industry. We, as well, extend our condolences to his family.
The Speaker: The Chair will ensure that those condolences are sent on behalf of the House.
Hon. J. Cashore: In Committee of Supply A, we will have the Aboriginal Affairs estimates.
In the chamber, I call second reading of Bill 32.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
Hon. J. Cashore: The environmental assessment of major projects in B.C. is currently conducted through three processes: the energy project review process, the mine development assessment process and the major project review process. These processes have demonstrated many strengths over the years. They offer a one-window government contact for each sector. They provide a means for the provincial government to consider the environmental, economic, social and heritage effects of projects in an integrated manner.
However, although they are similar in nature, there are differences in how the existing review processes are administered, in the specific requirements that must be met by the proponent and in the opportunities for public involvement. These inconsistencies foster uncertainty regarding how major projects will be reviewed. Reform is necessary to eliminate these inconsistencies and to provide a clear set of environmental assessment requirements for project proponents to follow.
In particular, it is important that we legislate the reviews required as a matter of government policy through the major project review process. These reforms will be critical to ensure compatibility with the federal government's Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The process and administrative structure contained in this bill address these reforms and provide an effective, open and consultative approach to assessing the effects of major development proposals.
The legislation has been strongly influenced by the results of the consultation process led by the hon. member for Nanaimo, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, in April and May of 1992. The public and stakeholder feedback the government received on the reforming environmental assessment in the British Columbia discussion paper was instrumental in refining the initial proposals.
Over the next several months, there will be further consultation on the development of a number of key regulations to guide the application and administration of the environmental assessment process. Of particular importance will be consultation regarding the regulations defining the type and size of projects that will be subject to the assessment process.
Certainty, openness and efficiency are key objectives that have guided the development of the bill. By establishing a clearly defined process and specifying time frames for critical stages of the process, the legislation will increase certainty for all participants in the environmental assessment process.
Administration of the environmental assessment process will be the responsibility of an environmental assessment office. Establishing an office whose mandate is process management will strongly contribute to the effective and efficient review of project proposals. The environmental assessment office will serve as a one-window contact for proponents and the public on the review of all projects subject to the legislation. In addition, a project committee will be formed to undertake the technical review of each project. The committee will be comprised of representatives nominated by provincial agencies, as well as -- where they have an interest in a project -- representatives of the federal government, local government, first nations and neighbouring jurisdictions.
To encourage involvement of the public the proposed legislation establishes, as a general rule, that information related to projects being reviewed is available to the public. Access to this information is facilitated through the creation of a project registry that will contain information on each project being reviewed. Strategic opportunities to review information on a proposed project and to provide comments to the provincial government are provided throughout the environmental assessment process. Recognizing the varied interests that must be involved in the environmental assessment process, these opportunities are provided to the public, first nations, provincial agencies, local government, federal agencies and our neighbouring jurisdictions. The bill includes the creation of an environmental assessment board to conduct independent reviews of complex and contentious projects. Establishing a permanent independent body will enable the development of an ongoing source of expertise in the public review of the effects of major projects. Collectively, these and other features of the bill will increase certainty for all participants in the environmental assessment process.
During the past several years, there has been considerable uncertainty regarding the environmental
[ Page 7028 ]
assessment roles and responsibilities of the provincial and federal governments. The legislation complements the federal government's Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The bill enables the provincial government to negotiate an agreement with the federal government that will clearly state how the requirements of both orders of government will be delivered in an efficient and effective manner. The bill also strongly reinforces the work undertaken by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment to ensure the consistent delivery of environmental assessment requirements across Canada. Clear opportunities are provided for involving our neighbours -- Alberta, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Alaska, Washington, Idaho and Montana -- in the review of projects in British Columbia that may affect them.
I believe this bill will strongly contribute to the government's commitment to foster sound investment and development opportunities for British Columbia while at the same time ensuring that we sustain a naturally diverse and healthy environment.
J. Tyabji: The opposition has some very serious concerns with regard to Bill 32. There are no accompanying regulations in draft form that we can look at to have a better feeling as to how the bill will be implemented. I think that the speed with which this bill has been brought before the House.... Within six days of it being tabled in the House, we're now in second reading stage. It's interesting that as of last night this bill wasn't expected to come up for debate. With a bill of this magnitude -- 45 pages of legislation that radically alter the assessment process for projects in B.C. -- and with B.C. being a resource-based economy, I think we needed a little more time than that to be in second reading.
I would like the minister to note right now that the opposition is extremely concerned with any speed in the passage of this bill. Because of its implications for the economy, we will make second reading last as long as we can in order to thoroughly canvass all aspects of the principle addressed in this bill. We feel it is unfortunate that the bill was brought forward with such haste that it has set off alarm bells in many sectors of the province, particularly in parts of the business community. Because of the speed with which it was brought forward, the debate will probably end up being longer than it would have been if there had been outside consultation with the people who will be directly affected by the bill. The minister should be forewarned that we will be canvassing many aspects of this in second reading.
The Environmental Assessment Act takes into account many different aspects of the provincial structure with regard to the Environment, Mines and Forests ministries and the utilities act. Where before there were environmental assessment processes, now we have one piece of legislation. One's immediate gut reaction is to say that it's a very good thing to have a streamlined process. We know that wherever an environmental assessment had to take place in the province, whether it was the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the north or any of the places where resource extraction takes place, historically there has been a loud and clear call for a single piece of legislation to deal with this. The question is: is this the piece of legislation that adequately reflects the needs and the interests of the people of the province? At this stage the opposition is extremely concerned that perhaps it is not. One reason is the extent of the bureaucracy and machinery that the bill will bring into place for the environmental assessment process.
[10:15]
Right away there's some concern that we're going to end up, as in the past, with a situation where venture capital is coming into B.C. for projects and people are looking at the potential to develop a site, whether for a mine or a hydro project or something to do with the utilities act, and that this bill will not allow for compensation in the event that venture capital is brought forward and put into a site, and the minister then deems that that site should come up for review. Not only is there no compensation under this bill, there's also no avenue for appeal if a project goes through this assessment process and doesn't meet the requirements set by the minister. In various sections of the bill there is a lot of room for the minister to get involved: to set terms of reference, to arbitrarily make decisions that deem which projects should or should not come before the assessment process, and what the terms of reference should be for judging a project successful or unsuccessful.
That's a big concern for the opposition, because we're not sure what the regulations will be that accompany the bill. What will the assessment guidelines be that the minister will refer to when he starts to arbitrarily designate projects that come before the ministry? We don't know what the guidelines are; we don't know what the parameters will be. Given this minister's very strong subscription to the precautionary principle -- to the extent that he often goes beyond the best available scientific knowledge in favour of the precautionary principle, and in a vacuum where there are no regulations in place -- we can only be extremely nervous that what we will have is an Environmental Assessment Act that will more or less shut down the resource industries. No one is in favour of economic activity that's detrimental to the environment. However, we do need jobs and a healthy economy. As we've seen in the Kootenays, there are many concerns. The anxiety about what might happen through this process may just dry up venture capital for projects that would be environmentally friendly. We could have some resource activities occurring which are environmentally benign, yet the venture capital won't be there, because of the long and arduous process that the Environmental Assessment Act is now setting up.
It's unfortunate that last year's Bill 32 died on the order paper. It's unfortunate that the very principles of the previous bill are now hidden within this Bill 32. A coincidence in numbers, I suppose. But the lack of compensation that was being proposed to resource industries, mining in particular, through last year's bill.... Last year that was not an acceptable way to go. Here we are with the same principles and direction being taken with this year's Bill 32, and yet it's couched
[ Page 7029 ]
in what we call a motherhood concept of environmental assessment. All of us favour responsible environmental assessment -- the kind that should have been done in the Nechako River diversion proposal and that needs to be done before any talk of a North Thompson diversion. Yet, hon. Speaker, there's a realm of arbitrariness in this bill that is a bit problematic. There isn't a fail-safe mechanism for projects to automatically come under the bill. We don't see any recognition of the fact that if we regulate the industries too stringently, we will end up having a backlash and lose the very industries that are needed in order to run many of the other aspects of government.
I'm concerned about the project committee that's being established. It's important. The idea of having a panel and project committee is a good idea in that it is arm's length from government. It's a third party, and it's a body that can bring various levels of expertise to any particular project. But I'm a bit concerned about the method of recommendation to the executive director. The project committee may end up being something similar to what we have with CORE. In and of itself it's an excellent body; it's good machinery, and the terms of reference and mandate of the committee are good. But the mechanism by which it reports to the executive director and the degree to which those reports are binding on the executive director are not outlined. We may end up just as with CORE, where you have a good process in place, but when a recommendation comes forward it is neither binding nor something that will carry weight on future decisions. If that's how the project committee will work within the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, then we have this theoretically very powerful body that is arm's length, that is a good idea, a good concept, but can't be free to function properly, because it doesn't have adequate provisions for binding decisions on the executive director.
If we look at the terms of reference and the power of the executive director in this bill, this is potentially the most significant change in how we will be conducting ourselves both on an economic development side and on an environmentally sustainable side. There again, the person who will be appointed by order-in-council, one would expect, will be someone who has a philosophy and perspective very similar to this government. That individual will therefore have a lot of authority and ability to direct this enabling bill. In a vacuum, without even the benefit of draft regulations to accompany this bill.... It makes one very nervous, because we have an extremely powerful executive director position -- we don't know who the person is -- and we have an enabling bill allowing great power to the accompanying regulatory section, yet we haven't even seen drafts of the regulation.
So what are we debating? In effect, we are debating an act that will pass over to the government the freedom to do whatever it would like with the environmental assessment process. Given the fact that last year we saw the anti-compensation mind-set -- the corporate capital tax and various initiatives coming forward that are not friendly to the corporate sector -- I think we have to be extremely concerned should the executive director be someone who will subscribe to those principles, to the taxation of assets or even the, as we might say, expropriation or anti-compensation mind-set of the government. Because this enabling bill stringently does not allow for compensation for venture capital, and there's no appeal process for that, we could, in effect, have an executive director and a minister making arbitrary decisions on projects occurring throughout the province and the resource sectors. At the very least, these decisions will be debatable in terms of the judgment being exercised. At the very worst, they could be ideologically driven in a way that will have serious impacts on resource communities and parts of the province that are counting on significant job creation through mining or forestry.
We in the opposition would be remiss if we didn't also address the open-ended definition in this bill with regard to the role of the first nations. We know that other pieces of legislation before the House have taken a certain direction with regard to the Treaty Commission and the role of aboriginal peoples. When we are talking about governing bodies, it's not defined. We've tried repeatedly to get a definition from this government as to what the limits of the jurisdiction of the first nations peoples are, and we haven't received it. Are we talking about a first nations governing body akin to a municipality or a provincial level of government? These kinds of definitions, which we will have to canvass later on, really get to the heart of how this bill will be interpreted. What level of comfort are we going to have in the activity of the bill when we've got definitions like that? They're a fundamental part of the workings of the bill, yet we still haven't tied down what the government means when they're referring to them.
Although I can support some of the ideas that are coming forward in principle, when there are no regulations, when there's so much freedom for the government to have a wide range of judgment on and jurisdiction over specific projects, and when there is so much freedom for the minister and the executive director to interfere with a process that in the past has worked quite successfully, to a large extent, we have to be a bit concerned.
Throughout this debate we will be repeatedly asking the government to put this bill out for public feedback. We'll be asking them to take it out to the very groups that will be affected by it in order to get feedback that will perhaps end up as amendments -- if not to the bill, to the regulations that are being proposed to go with it.
Unfortunately, although we're sitting here with a very important piece of legislation in front of us, which in theory is going to streamline and make things more effective -- and I'm sure the government will come forward and argue that it will be more efficient and therefore a much better way to go -- we don't know how this legislation will be construed or how it is going to be enacted through the regulations. In the absence of that, it's very hard to be supportive of this bill, particularly in the absence of the workings of the project committee and the parameters of their judgments. For example, if a judgment comes forward, to what extent is the minister and the executive director
[ Page 7030 ]
bound by that? These are the kinds of concerns we're bringing forward in second reading.
I think we will see some amendments in second reading that will try to convince the minister to delay passage of the bill. We definitely don't want legislation of this magnitude passed as quickly as it has been brought forward for second reading. We can't have that, hon. Speaker. Despite the fact that it is late in the session and despite the fact that we all know that everyone is feeling a bit tired, we would be remiss if we didn't pay due diligence to this bill and take as long as possible to allow for public consultation to go on outside the House.
In the absence of the government soliciting opinions from various sectors of the community, the opposition is doing that from a broad range of people. We are canvassing environmental groups as well, to see how comfortable they are with the role of the executive director and the fact that there is no appeal, and to see how comfortable they are with the minister having a lot of discretion as far as which projects come before it. We're canvassing various sectors of the community to find out how comfortable they are in terms of why there isn't a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that any project that fits certain criteria doesn't automatically fall under the Environmental Assessment Act. Perhaps that will be in the regulations, but we don't know.
In effect, we're standing here debating a blank cheque that the government has asked us to give them in lieu of any regulations, any idea of who the executive director will be or any idea of whether or not the project committee will be any more or less effective than CORE has been. My feeling is that it may end up being something that is great in name and theory but is actually powerless -- very similar to CORE. Even though it's set up and is structurally sound in terms of the politics of the situation, there's very little ability for it to have any significant impact on the final decision-making.
With that, I end my comments on the first submission to second reading debate. I would urge the minister to consider having this bill placed later on in the agenda for the rest of the session, so that we will not have an extended debate and so that the opposition can canvass the opinions of people outside the House and talk to people outside the community.
Before I end, I would like to say that I anticipate there will be a lot of references from the government side to the travelling road show that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment went on and to the process that brought this bill before the House. In anticipation of that, I'd like to say that this government doesn't understand the difference between having input before the bill is brought forward and allowing input to the bill when it's before the House. That's when the opposition would like the input. There's no question that in terms of process, prior to this bill being tabled there was a lot of opportunity for public input. Now we need the public to have the opportunity to see the final product of that input and to determine whether or not that adequately reflects the submissions they gave to the environmental assessment committee that was travelling the province.
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak to the Environmental Assessment Act. In his opening remarks, the minister said that this bill will lead to greater certainty, openness and efficiency. Hon. Speaker, believe it or not, he almost managed to keep a straight face when he said it -- just a little hint of the smile that's usually there when one is making an outrageous statement like that. We knew when we looked at this bill that it provided anything but certainty and openness; and certainly efficiency has to have been the furthest thing from anybody's mind when they brought in a piece of legislation like this.
[10:30]
We're getting used to seeing this kind of legislation tabled by the NDP. We're becoming accustomed to seeing legislation drafted in a way that is deliberately vague and that deliberately gives the people of British Columbia no insight and no hint of what the government truly intends to do. We see the use of words that are deliberately vague. We see processes that almost always provide for regulations, which are the real meat of these pieces of legislation, to be developed by cabinet.
So we don't like it, we are not happy with it, and we are not going to become accustomed to it. We see this approach to legislation time and time again; it is becoming more common with this government. I looked the other day at the Human Rights Amendment Act, the words of which are so deliberately vague, so open to interpretation -- not the kind of words that one would expect to find in legislation or in law. When we look at the thrust of this bill, it is as deliberately vague; the bill leaves almost any course of action open to the government.
This is another step in a process that started soon after this government was elected. In this province we had a very good mine development review process that was chaired by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Minister of Environment. We had a process that recognized the balance necessary between the economy and the environment. It became clear soon after this government was elected that they were going to move the mine development review process under the sole purview of the Minister of Environment. There was a tremendous amount of lobbying from the mining industry. The mining industry wanted to maintain the mine development review process; it wanted the involvement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in decisions regarding the development of new mines. It was a good process that looked at environmental concerns but with the intent of looking for ways to bring mines into production -- not looking for ways to kill projects or to put them on the back burner but for positive ways to bring mines into production. That was the thrust. The intent was that if there were an ore body and a group of people who wanted to develop it, there should be and must be an environmentally sensitive way to develop it. It was very much a positive, proactive kind of process: very detailed, very clear in the steps that the proponent had to go through, and with clear benchmarks and points along the way so that a proponent could know whether or not they were being successful in the development of their proposal.
[ Page 7031 ]
Instead we saw the process shifted to the Ministry of Environment -- the sole arbitrator. There is no recognition in that process for the mine development process. Now we see this being expanded. There is no role in this for the Minister of Economic Development, although it may cut across any range of projects; no role in this for the Minister of Forests, although they may well involve projects like manufacturing plants and others; no role for anyone other than the Minister of Environment. It's unfortunate, and not unexpected. Having looked at what happened with the mine review process, we should have been forewarned. We should have known what to expect from this government as it set out to broaden the web. This legislation....
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: We hear yipping from the parliamentary secretary. It's no wonder; I would be mortified if I had had a part in the development of this legislation. I would be embarrassed. I would leave the chamber. I would hide my head in shame if I had been part of the process that led to this legislation. Hon. Speaker, we should not be surprised that the member reacts and yaps and yips.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would call the House to order. The hon. Leader of the Third Party has the floor, but I would caution the member to get back to addressing second reading of Bill 32.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, as we in this chamber know, each and every member will have an opportunity to stand and speak to the bill. Some of the government members find it much more convenient to heckle from the sidelines, but this member isn't hesitant to take to his feet, so we'll listen with a great of interest as he speaks.
Bill 32 is one more government initiative that will undermine investor confidence in British Columbia. Clearly, investors looking at British Columbia were disturbed by taxation measures like the corporate capital tax, outraged at labour legislation that has been brought into this chamber and concerned about Employment Standards Act changes that will be brought into the Legislature. All of those things affect investor confidence. An investor looking at a project in British Columbia would look at this legislation and be alarmed, and so they should be. There is absolutely no sense.
The minister talks about openness, certainty and efficiency. There's no openness; there's no certainty. There's not even an indication in this legislation as to what kind of hoops a proponent will be asked to jump through -- and to pay not only their own costs, but the costs of anybody who wants to come and make a presentation and, if the minister decides, to pay for the minister's costs as well. Hon. Speaker, if that doesn't undermine investor confidence, I can't imagine what would. But it is particularly alarming given the bias and direction that's been so clear with this government since it was first elected to office. This legislation is one more anti-business, anti-development, anti-growth piece of legislation that we should, I suppose, expect from a government with the kind of biases this government comes to office with.
We are going to examine this legislation clause by clause. We are going to expect that the government will have the courage to allow those people who are going to be affected by this legislation -- chambers of commerce, mining associations, petroleum associations, the COFIs, the forest industry and small truck loggers -- to have an opportunity to look at this legislation and comment on it. Good legislation is exposed to the light of day. Good legislation gives people an opportunity to examine it. It allows for discussion about the implications of the legislation. Good legislation then considers and reflects on the impact it will have on the province and on the people who live and work in the province.
This legislation is going to slow down economic activity in British Columbia. It is going to dissuade investors, it is going to extend the period of time that it takes to get a project developed in British Columbia, and it is so vague as to leave us uncertain as to what the intents are. That's the sad part. The processes are so vague and so left to regulation that one can only look at the track record and history of this government, and only look at the things this government has done with the mine development review process and other processes. One can only come to the conclusion that this legislation is not balanced, and that there is no recognition in this legislation or by the government of the need to balance economic development with environmental protection.
There is a fear. There is a lack of confidence that this government can develop balanced kinds of approaches and that it can give both sides of an issue an opportunity to argue. We've seen it in Clayoquot. The government brought in a program that I thought was a pretty good decision, and then was paralyzed with fear about issuing permits and putting the plan into place. So we see people sitting on the sidelines, because the government can't find the courage to proceed with something that it now finds itself under criticism for by some of its support groups.
I think that this is bad legislation. I think it is brought forward with very little opportunity for the stakeholders to comment on it, and that's deliberate. That is done very much out of fear of the reaction of British Columbians when the intent and scope of this legislation and its lack of clarity.
We're going to hear a lot more about the second Bill 32. It's rather ironic that in the first session this government brought forward a Bill 32 that would have taken away from resource companies and tenure holders the right to compensation. The government had to stand down the first Bill 32. Perhaps that's an omen. For the sake of British Columbia, perhaps it's a positive omen. When they have heard what industry and working people in industry and communities and others have to say about this legislation, maybe this minister will -- as the Attorney General did -- stand down this legislation after second reading and let it die on the order paper. Maybe he can then send the member
[ Page 7032 ]
for Nanaimo out to bring back some realistic recommendations for a process to develop this province in a positive and environmentally sensitive way. I would give the former instructor an F on this one. If one were grading papers, one would either toss the bill in the rubbish basket or write "Rewrite" across it and send it back to the person who developed it.
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, I am again hearing that author from Nanaimo, the one who has never quite made it to cabinet.
The Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure hon. members are enjoying the interchange, but I ask the member to address his comments to the bill and to the Chair.
J. Weisgerber: I suppose that having a hand in drafting a piece of legislation is almost as good. It's at least a little taste, a preview of what that sweet thing might be like if he were ever to get there. This bill is anything but a sweet thing. It's very much the kind of negative legislation that this government is now bringing forward on a regular basis.
The legislation lacks what is needed to develop the province in a reasonable way that's sensitive to the needs of the economy and the environment. We see nothing in the bill to indicate that there's any recognition of.... When he introduced the bill, the minister didn't even give lip service to the need to balance and encourage growth and expansion in our economy. We haven't heard from the minister. We have no indication of the extent of the coverage; there's nothing to suggest that the bill is going to deal only with projects larger than $1 million or $500,000 or $50,000. There are absolutely no parameters at all for this legislation; it can cover anything and everything. Big Brother would love Bill 32, and Big Brother, I guess, is introducing Bill 32.
[10:45]
We will be voting against the bill. We will be doing our best to delay passage of the bill. We will be doing our very best to encourage the Minister of Environment to follow the example of the Attorney General last year and stand this bad piece of legislation down. Go back to the stakeholders and try to develop a workable piece of legislation that will deal with the real world in British Columbia.
A. Cowie: It gives me great pleasure to speak briefly about this bill. It's a bill of uncertainty, in my opinion. I was going to use the term "Big Brother bill," but now I can't, so I'll simply say that it's a "trust me" bill. There's very much a need for an environmental assessment process, and it's timely that we go through a review of that process. At one time we had a process that was managed through the land use secretariat and in which various ministries took part, and I believe it was a good process. As the member opposite mentioned, that process was in fact created by the NDP government. I don't know why they don't review it and bring it up to date, and make the review for environmental purposes through a similar process.
In principle this is a good bill. Because it has come out prematurely, what it lacks, I believe, is a definition of the rules. What are the appropriate rules, and how are they going to be managed? That's what worries me more than anything.
I can remember in 1970 when the open-pit mining legislation was brought in. It was not brought in by the NDP government. I guess today we have to refer to it as having been brought in by the dinosaur party. I can remember appearing in front of that lost group of ministers, and I was very disappointed over the years in how the regulations were followed. They weren't spelled out very well at all. As the speaker before me mentioned, if applicants could go through a proper land use secretariat process, where the Minister of Mines could have a say and look at it in a balanced way, it would be much better than the way this bill appears to be going. The rules have to be spelled out.
It's not certain whether it applies to all lands. I would think that the government would want it to apply to everyone: first nations people and the Crown, as well as freehold land. It should apply to everyone, and that's not clear at all. Does it apply to large and small projects? Surely there should be a different process for small projects. Small projects can get stymied in a big review process. Does it apply to recreational land? I don't know; it doesn't say. Is this where ski resorts are going to have to go in the future?
There appears to be no appeal process. There's no compensation -- at least I can't see it in there. The executive of this new board, who is going to administer it, seems to have ultimate power. One thing I've always worried about with the NDP is that they tend to be elitist about these things and put decisions into a bureaucratic mechanism, where the politician doesn't have a say anymore and where the real person can't get a good response. In any type of legislation like this, I'm absolutely adamant that there be a deadline for government to adhere to. There should be a set of rules to follow, and then the government has to act. It has to say no or yes by a certain time. The bureaucrats cannot hide behind the legislation.
I have personally managed a lot of environmental reviews -- little ones, I might say....
An Hon. Member: Name some.
A. Cowie: I've done them for Port Moody in the bay area, for White Rock and for many other areas. I'd be pleased to give the member a list.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
The environmental aspects are relatively easy to deal with in doing an environmental review. If you look at it technically, it's possible to get the information and a response from technical people. What really worries me in this bill is that we're also going to look at economic, social and cultural aspects. I believe that we should do that in a general way, but I don't know how in-depth a
[ Page 7033 ]
look we're going to get. It's where it gets iffy; it gets into never-never land. All you need are some special interest people and activist groups to get hold of one small aspect or detail about an area, and they can delay it by months. There has to be some process to regulate it so that a small business is not held up and can go through the process in a reasonable way.
I got some clarification about the ALR in the estimates on Agriculture. I think one might want to look at it from that point of view. I believe the Agricultural Land Commission should, in fact, be a technical group. It relates to this bill in that if one restricts their activities to technical aspects -- get them out of zoning and planning -- then I think we can deal with it. I'm not so sure where this bill is going. As the previous speaker said, it's a Big Brother bill that says "trust me." I'm looking forward to going through committee stage and trying to get more information. I support our lead speaker on this. I think more time is needed to examine the regulations and mechanisms. I would hope that the minister would table this bill and bring it back at a future date -- perhaps in the fall or next spring -- after it's had a proper review process.
C. Serwa: I rise to speak in opposition to Bill 32. It is a very thick and ponderous act, introduced only a few days ago in this Legislature. It's a massive bill -- 45 pages of technical text and 108 sections. It is of great concern to me when an important environmental piece of legislation is brought -- with the apparent effort of the Minister of the Environment to rush it through the Legislature prior to anyone in the public having an opportunity to ascertain the implications and details -- prior to the public having an opportunity to come back to government and the opposition parties with their particular views on the magnitude of this bill.
The bill has been brought forward with a great deal of flowery rhetoric and comforting words. It is purported to be primarily a motherhood issue, indicating a great deal of concern with respect to projects and the effect on the environment of those projects, and here we have a comprehensive bill that is going to cure all ills. Well, it's not going to. From my perspective, environmental issues should be fundamentally apolitical. They should be directed towards environmental issues of concern.
This particular bill goes far beyond that. This is a bill brought in by a socialist government. It's their type of response to the faux pas of Clayoquot Sound, some effort to appease environmental groups, saying: "We haven't lost control, keep the faith. For the rest of British Columbians, we are government. We know what's best for you. Our way is the only way and our way is the right way." I don't believe that for one instance.
There is always a great deal of concern with major projects and their impact on the environment. There are a number of review processes, through the British North America Act and the federal jurisdiction over fish, and that accompanies water and the pollution of water. So they have a very strong place in major project environmental review processes, even in British Columbia.
We also had a major project review process that worked very effectively in British Columbia. Celgar Pulp is part and parcel of that type of a process, and I think the results have been very gratifying. The project has gone ahead. The environmental concerns have been attended to, both in the water pollution aspect and the air pollution concerns of the local residents. The workers are very pleased with the expansion, with the stability in the community and the full-time, well-paying employment opportunities for the people.
I am concerned about the amount of influence of socialist ideology brought into an environmental bill. The ideology covers all aspects. Not only are we looking, as we should, from an environmental way at a piece of legislation brought in by the Minister of the Environment, we are looking at all sorts of other concerns that seem to be attendant to this particular bill. There's a great deal of difficulty here, from my perspective.
If it's in an environmental review process, then I can fully appreciate the necessity for the bill and the apolitical objective format of a bill, as it should have been presented. But it is not. Part of it is, but it is completely influenced by the socialist ideology that we know best or the socialists know best what is right and proper for the people of British Columbia.
[11:00]
The position that the minister, the drafter of this bill, has taken is not one that I can agree with at all. There is no awareness of the uncertainty a measure such as this bill will create for economics, business and investment in the province. The bill does absolutely nothing to secure or enhance the review processes already in place. It very effectively casts a spell of doom over economic investment in the province by increasing uncertainty over who controls what. It allows the government to evade its responsibilities, and it allows cabinet and the Minister of Environment to stand behind a very complex process. Only after a long period of time will the minister or cabinet be confronted with some of the realities. At that time, they would have hoped to have explored and exhausted all avenues, but the only thing they will have exhausted will be the willingness of an investor to further invest in the province. Well, that's fine.
There's not much sympathy or understanding on the government side of the House as to what it takes to pay their paycheques. Most of the members on the government side have come out of the civil service, or they were professors in a university, professional public speakers or professional politicians -- a group of individuals who have never really done anything on their own. They have ridden the system. They have used the system, and now they are abusing it for their own needs, wants and expectations. The reality is that from that single, fixed and narrow-minded focus and spectrum, socialist ideology.... They believe and pretend they're altruistic, although, frankly, there's a great deal of theft being committed every day by this particular government from the taxpayers of the province.
From that perspective they're saying: "What we believe is right, is in fact right. We know best, of course,
[ Page 7034 ]
because we are now the government." They never did represent the will of the majority of the people in the province. I assure you that if they did, this would not be the British Columbia it is today. I lament that that narrow-minded philosophy is being exhibited in this particular bill.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: The hon. member for Nanaimo thinks it's funny. He would think it's funny because he, like the government, simply doesn't get it. They simply don't get it. They do not understand the reality that that uncertainty places a heavy imposition on people's willingness to invest or to increase capital investment in British Columbia. The uncertainty will have great cost, not only in the mechanics of going through the whole process here but also over a period of time. Projects have a certain finite lifetime. Market opportunities fluctuate in a sine wave, where you can get capital investment and where the opportunity for merchandising a product exists. But that's academic and irrelevant to these people. They've collected their paycheques as regularly as clockwork. Most of us on this side of the House have never had regular paycheques. As a matter of fact, this is the first time in my life that I've been in that situation. They think that everyone does, but they don't understand where those paycheques come from. They come from the strength and vitality of the economy in British Columbia. This bill will do nothing more than stifle that. It does not ensure a superior quality of environmental assessment in any way, shape or form.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. They're an unusually rowdy bunch this morning. I appreciate your intervention at this particular time.
The powers given to cabinet, the committee and the minister in this particular bill are very vague and widespread. There is no focus on the type of project. Any project can fall within the parameters of this.
It is not like the major project review process. Any project, minor or major, can fall within the parameters of the framework of this particular piece of legislation. The scope is not only vague but general, and on top of being general, it's expansive, because the projects could have environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects. That's pretty broad for the Ministry of Environment. I didn't know that the Minister of Environment was responsible for social services, multiculturalism or heritage. I thought those were all areas under different ministries. That's the concern I have when you bring all of these ideological concerns and influences into any particular piece of legislation, because primarily, hon. Speaker, this bill is an environmental bill and should focus objectively on environmental concerns. I would have no difficulty, or a lot less diffciculty, if it did. But the injection of that particular bias, which hasn't worked anywhere in the world and will not work here, is very wrong indeed.
I recognize, hon, Speaker, that the government is very sensitive. It is rightly accused every day of leaving nothing but a trail of broken election promises. It's hard to find anyone who is proud or admits that they voted for this particular government in the last election, because of this awesome trail of broken election promises.
I'm concerned, because we're talking about an impact on the economy of British Columbia. It's an impact on the ability of government to provide the responsible level of services that are required for the people of British Columbia. It doesn't matter whether it's education, health care, social services or funding the Ministry of Agriculture in the government, what is of primary concern is that it takes a strong economy. This bill does nothing to support a stronger economy; it does quite the opposite: it stifles the opportunity for economic growth.
Fiscal management is not a strong point of this government. They have no basis, background or experience and, obviously, a total lack of sensitivity for the requirements....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Fine, fine, the Minister of Government Services feels contrary to that fact. But I wonder how many employees she has ever hired and how many payrolls she has met. What type of products did she produce? How did she strengthen the economy of British Columbia? What risks has she taken? How much has she ventured? Or has her education and all the other things been funded out of the public sector?
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: Order.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, this government is so short of smarts with respect to fiscal management that in their first year of office they ballooned the provincial deficit to $2.4 billion: a record in the province. Compare that with the record of the previous administration: by the auditor general's own figures, an increase of only $1.48 billion over the previous five years. In the first year of this government, they ballooned the deficit to $2.4 billion. Compounding the lunacy and inability to manage the fiscal affairs of this province, they have increased -- at a time when revenues are short -- full-time equivalent employees in the province by over 2,000 individuals. The projected deficit for this year, hon. Speaker, if you take into consideration the current budget that was tabled and the Build BC....
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. The hon. member for Okanagan East rises on a point of order.
J. Tyabji: As much as I agree with some of the points being made, I don't think they even remotely have anything to do with the bill; at least I can't see the connection. Maybe we could get back to the bill.
[ Page 7035 ]
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order does have some validity, in that we do have a bill before us which has a principle. However, the Chair recognizes reasonable latitude. Would the hon. member please keep that in mind.
C. Serwa: I certainly recognize reasonable latitude, hon. Speaker. But as Mr. Speaker knows and understands, sometimes one has to develop a platform on which to stand. The impact of Bill 32 is that it is going to tamper with the fiscal environment of the province. It's clearly imperative that I enunciate and expand on that as a foundation in order to express my particular concerns about the merits -- demerits, I would say, would be more appropriate -- of Bill 32. In building my platform, I intend to continue.
The projected deficit for 1993-94 will be over $3.2 billion. From a trend-setting government which is establishing a record for broken promises and massive deficits, this is certainly a substantial increase over their first year in office, which was $2.4 billion. The only economic solution -- and we're still talking about the fiscal impact of the Environmental Assessment Act.... The only solution they have as a bright economic field of promise is the socialist rhetoric of "tax the rich." Over 50 percent of personal income tax in the province is now paid by the top 10 percent of wage-earners. It's interesting to note that in that top 10 percent are teachers, who are probably in the top 8 percent.
Taxing the rich is not going to do it. What we have to do in providing legislation is create a climate of opportunity. Yes, we have to be environmentally responsible; there is absolutely no question of that necessity. But that's an apolitical issue. The problem I have with this Environmental Assessment Act is that they have imposed socialist ideology. The Minister of Environment is now responsible for social, cultural, heritage and all sorts of other affairs that have been brought into this bill. The whole bill therefore becomes very wishy-washy: it loses its purpose, its focus, its intent.
The philosophy and principles are such that.... Everyone in British Columbia is, and always will be, concerned about the quality of our environment; we know that. But British Columbians are desperately concerned about the strength of the economy. That is first and foremost in the mind of every British Columbian -- jobs. Full-time, meaningful, well-paid jobs are on the mind of every British Columbian. That's fine. We're against corporations; we're against people who can make money. But the reality is that what we're really saying is that we're against jobs -- jobs for people. I can understand full well why the Minister of Social Services is now increasing the debt so dramatically; she is anticipating bills like the Environmental Assessment Act, which will put more people on her rolls. I suppose it's the belief of the socialists that everyone on social assistance votes for a socialist government, so they're strengthening their voting power. It's certainly chaotic thinking.
I'm really concerned about the delay in the clearance of major projects. We do require a continuation of major capital investment in the province. But because of the mechanics and the elements in this bill, it seems that the philosophy is to delay, to procrastinate and then to delay some more -- to hide behind committees, to hide behind organizations. In spite of the vagueness and the broad context of this bill, both the cabinet and the Minister of Environment have the ability to identify projects which are simply outside the scope of the bill and the legislation, and apparently outside the scope of the regulations as well.
We on this side of the House have a great deal of difficulty appreciating that the government of the day cannot put forward an environmental assessment act that deals strictly with environmental matters and is objective, realistic and practical. The nature of major projects, having the potential of a major impact on the province or major environmental impacts -- be it water, air or inequality of pollution concerns -- have to be identified and assessed. Anything that we do in the province -- an increase in population, a building, a power plant, any type of a major project -- has an environmental cost. Simply by being here we are changing the environment. It's not someone else; it's the needs, wants and expectations of a growing population that are changing the environment.
[11:15]
But we have to realistic. We have to understand that in all of Canada, British Columbia is the finest place to live. Migration will continue in Canada, and we have to provide jobs for people. The simple-minded socialist rhetoric of taxing the rich being the panacea to provide the funds to allow government to do all of the things it believes it should do, as well as the things it must do to provide services for people is wrong, wrong, wrong. It has failed all over the world.
Deficits are not something you can proudly hang your hat on. We need the strength of an economy. This creates so many uncertainties. If you put this on top of previous legislation that this government has brought in -- the labour legislation, for example -- it makes it virtually impossible for someone who is objective, clear-minded and looking for investment opportunities anywhere in the world to invest here in British Columbia.
Unless we get people to invest in British Columbia -- and that means British Columbians, other Canadians and nationals of other countries -- we are going to go down the tube. We will lose the momentum. We will lose the ability to compete. We will lose the technological advantages that we have in the world.
That is my concern when a bill such as the Environmental Assessment Act is brought into the Legislature with the intent and the effort on the part of the government to try to ram this through, prior to the public having the ability to review this bill and prior to the public being able to understand the implications; even prior to the union individuals who will be looking for jobs, not only for themselves but for their children, to express their concerns with this silly bill.
I have a great deal of problem with the bill. I stand in opposition because I see this bill not as enhancing the environmental assessment of major projects in the province. I see this bill as nothing more than a long-nosed socialist bill which will intervene, which
[ Page 7036 ]
will build more bureaucracies and which will cost more money. It has no positive effect on improving the quality or expressing the concerns either from the proponent, from the government side, or from the public side. It's just an opportunity for more dialogue, more controversy and more delay. If there was ever a disincentive to expand investment from within the province, outside of the province or international investment, it is Bill 32.
I stand strongly in opposition to Bill 32 and will continue to stand in opposition to Bill 32.
D. Lovick: I want to start my comments on second reading of this important measure by emphasizing a slight discomfort. The discomfort I have is expressed by a confession. I said to the minister not very long ago that I really didn't anticipate any difficulties with this particular measure because we had made every effort to reach out to all of those who would be affected by the legislation and we had made every effort to reach out, moreover, to the opposition members. We had given them every opportunity to find out what was going on and had offered to answer questions. We did all of those things, and, to my chagrin and my surprise, I now discover that there appears to be some major concern and trepidation, indeed even hostility, towards this particular measure. As an academic and as one who is thinking about the specific measures of the bill, I am shocked that that should happen. As a politician, however, on reflection, I am not shocked, but I am embarrassed at how politically naive I was to have not seen what would really happen. I failed to recognize that the opposition would go along with the old adage that the opposition's principal duty is to oppose and nothing more, and that they would look upon this measure as an opportunity to have a little glory and get a little attention, which they haven't had thus far.
Having said that, I want to do something that I never thought I would do in this chamber, and that is to recognize that there is indeed a difference between the official opposition and the third party opposition. I found -- and I want to pay a little tribute to the official opposition -- that they actually appeared to have read the bill and to have done some homework. They quite legitimately are saying: "We have some concerns, and we look forward to committee stage so we can see if our concerns are legitimate. We're going to pose questions to government, and we want government to demonstrate to us that this bill is indeed as good as government claims." I say to those members: good for you; that's as it should be done. But then I look at the third party. Alas, what I discover is a scene reminiscent of something out of Jurassic Park -- the dinosaurs are walking.
I want to congratulate the member for Okanagan West who spoke just before me. What wonderful entertainment it was -- wonderful stuff in the tradition of Phil Gaglardi, Agnes Kripps, Dan Campbell and Don Phillips. I had a sense of being part of a time warp, and you did it, member, wonderfully well. Thank you. The old rhetoric that we haven't heard in here for at least 18 months came through again, and by god, it was entertaining.
The problem is, not only was the rhetoric terribly old, but so were the ideas. What we heard was the old shtick. We heard the line that any effort to protect the environment will retard development and that this measure, because it purports and endeavours to protect environment, will be anti-development and will scare investment away, etc. But as I listened to those comments, the other thing that flashed into my mind was: for whom were the members in the Social Credit caucus speaking? I have spoken to the Mining Association of B.C. I have met with the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. I have talked with COFI and industries throughout this province, and do you know what? They don't have the same concerns that those folks do. I therefore wonder: who do you claim to be representing, or do you represent anybody? I suspect that they don't represent anybody but themselves and the desire to oppose.
The desire to oppose, I have a hunch, has something to do with our local guru in B.C., and I'm referring to his eminence Vaughn Palmer. In the first paragraph of his column on this measure, Vaughn Palmer says that the bill promises to be the sleeping giant of the session. What happened, of course, is that members opposite said: "Holy cow, I guess we haven't really been awake. Maybe we'd better jump." That, I suspect, is the other reason for the outrageously unfounded and unsupported opposition to this measure.
Again I want to emphasize that the official opposition is saying to us: "Yes, we've got some concerns" -- even major concerns, as the member opposite indicates. "We want to look at it; we want to put some pressure on this thing." That's fine. That's as it should be, because the bill has major impact and major importance to this province; there is no question of that. But a knee-jerk, visceral reaction that simply says "we're going to oppose" -- which I have a hunch happened, by the way, as the member was speaking.... I think the rhetoric got going, and five minutes into the speech the hon. Leader of the Third Party said: "Well, what the heck. I've said this much; I guess, to be logical and consistent, I'd better say we're opposed." I have a hunch that was the thought behind the opposition's opposition.
The fact is, though, that there is a difference. Ultimately, this is important legislation. It matters simply because the old way of operating in the province was demonstrably not working. If members opposite think that the assessment process, the mine review process and the Utilities Commission Act gave us all the protections they thought -- and we all believed -- they did, guess again. Look at the predicament we've got in Kemano and look at half a dozen other developments in the province that have torn communities apart, cost the province billions of dollars and retarded development. Then recognize why we had to do what we did in this measure.
Quite frankly, this measure is designed to encourage responsible, legitimate and sustainable development in this province. It is not intended to retard development -- quite the contrary. But it says -- here's the key point -- that we need an environment-economy integration. We can't pretend any longer that development, ipso facto, is good and desirable. We can't do that because
[ Page 7037 ]
we have learned to our pain, chagrin and horror that development sometimes costs us more than it benefits us. We've got thousands of examples of that. The world has changed, and we recognize that. This legislation is designed to demonstrate that we are not going to be able to do business as we have; we have to do it in another way.
Interjections.
D. Lovick: I hear people opposite saying: "Give us some examples." Let me just give you a small one, then, from my own career, given that the member for Okanagan West likes to refer to the fact that none of us over here has ever worked for a living, or some such silliness.
I used to log; that's how I made my way through university -- by working in the forest industry. The example I will give you is forestry in general. Look at what we did. Look at the despoilment of our environment in B.C. under the forest practices.
Interjection.
D. Lovick: No, the Minister of Forests is quite correctly telling us that we have to do it differently. The reality is that we haven't done it very well in the past; that industry will do it very nicely.
If you want another example, how about northeast coal, which is something near and dear to the hearts of members opposite? If you want to talk about a development that we're not sure was a gross total benefit to the province, there's one. There are a lot of examples, to be quite candid about it.
The point we are making here, first of all, is: yes, the rules have changed. We have to recognize that we are dealing with a fragile environment with finite resources that have to be husbanded very carefully. We can't carry on as we did in the past.
The second point is that we need to ensure that there is certainty in the process. Quite frankly, that was the main concern we heard out there when we talked to the people of the province and to industry.
Interjection.
D. Lovick: Yes, it is in the bill. When you look at third reading and actually get beyond reading the explanatory notes, you're going to discover that.
[11:30]
What we found out, above all, was that the concern expressed by industry -- one that I think was legitimate -- was: "What we need to know is what the rules are. What we need to know, moreover, is whether there is one set of rules or five sets of rules by different levels of government and different ministries." We attempted, then, in this legislation -- and I think we've succeeded -- to put the rules in one place where they are clearly enunciated...
An Hon. Member: But they're not clearly enunciated.
D. Lovick: They will be.
...and to make them compatible with other jurisdictions, notably the federal government; also, to get out of the absolutely untenable position of having different ministries with different sets of requirements or rules. That was the problem enunciated and articulated by industry which we have addressed in this legislation.
We also, I'm happy to note, have provided for continuing input, consultation and discussion. For example, we are inviting the principal stakeholders to look at the regulations as they are being drafted. There's nothing draconian -- to borrow that awful word -- is in this legislation. There is power. You bet there's power exercised by government, simply because there must be. That is government's responsibility. But it is not some effort on anybody's part to take over and interfere in areas that we shouldn't otherwise be involved in.
In short, when people have an opportunity to look at what the bill actually does and what it says, I think they are going to recognize that it is long overdue. It is going to increase efficiency. It will probably save money and thereby ultimately encourage development.
Interjections.
D. Lovick: I see members opposite guffawing a bit. It's true, as a poet once said, that the loud laugh bespeaketh a vacant mind. We can see that happening.
The reality, though, is that we are going to get greater efficiency and greater certainty. We're going to streamline the process. Anybody with any knowledge of economics knows that all of those amount to money in the bank. Those are going to help out the process.
I encourage members opposite to participate in this debate vigorously, to ask all kinds of questions and to focus on precisely what the legislation does. But please let us get beyond the stale, outworn and silly rhetoric that I heard a few moments ago. Let us try to raise the level ever so slightly, so we can have a meaningful debate in this chamber about this good and necessary legislation.
A. Warnke: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: I'm not sure they're here yet, but I believe they will be shortly. I'm very proud to say that in the precincts is a tour from Lord Byng Elementary School on Second Avenue in Steveston where I have my constituency office, so this is a school very dear to my heart. Grade 7 students led by Mr. George Siemens will be visiting us this morning. I would appreciate it if the House would make them welcome.
Deputy Speaker: On second reading of Bill 32, the hon. member for.... Oh, are you rising for an introduction?
R. Chisholm: I ask leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
[ Page 7038 ]
R. Chisholm: I will make the introduction now, rather than earlier when the speakers were in full flight, so to speak. In the precinct today we have 14 grade 7 students from Chilliwack Christian School, with Mr. N. Brouwer. They're here to see how the parliamentary system and our democracy work while they're in this wonderful city of Victoria. Would the House make them most welcome.
L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and follow the member from Nanaimo. He is always so colourful and....
Interjection.
L. Fox: Yes. The rhetoric that comes out of that member is usually something I aspire to. Hopefully, one day, after I have sat in the Legislature, I'll be able to enunciate things as well as that member does.
I found it increasingly comforting that this member should suggest that the autonomy that this bill puts in the hands of cabinet is something that we should all feel so comfortable with. All we have to do is look at the past record of this government -- not just in the past 20 months, but between '72 and '75 -- and what it has done to the resource industries of this province. That does a lot to assure me that this member and this government are indeed concerned about all British Columbians. Nothing could be further from the truth. The member for Nanaimo stood up and suggested that this process was going to defend the interests of the people with respect to the Kemano completion project. In fact, if he took the time to look back to the agreement in 1952, he would know very well that today's process would have a very difficult time rectifying some of the agreement that was made in 1952.
The member also suggested that he had reached out and listened to all interested parties across the province in formulating this legislation. I suggest that that member has selective hearing, if he listened to all interested people in the province. He took out of it exactly what he wanted to hear and failed to listen to the concerns of industry and of individuals who are presently unemployed. They see opportunities, but those particular projects are not moving forward because of the policies of this government. The member for Nanaimo failed to listen to the mining industry and to the exploration segment of mining. That industry has left British Columbia because of the policies of this government that are against that industry.
The member also suggested that there is a huge problem in the Ministry of Forests, and that we had an environmental mess in that particular area. Nothing could be further from the truth. To project this kind of discussion into this legislation in order to justify that Bill 32 was the need is totally irresponsible. The minister is presently out showing leaders from Germany what state the forest industry is in. We have a lot to be proud of in the state of our forests.
This is not an objective bill; it is a subjective bill. This bill subjects the investment to a long process -- yet undefined. For that matter, the process can be determined on a day-to-day basis by the government and by cabinet. As an investor, if I were looking at this province today and I knew that I would be subjected to the wishes of this cabinet and to the expenses that are projected in this legislation, I would be extremely concerned that this was not a government that wanted to encourage my investment. This government has put together a process that discourages my investment, not encourages it.
When we look at the need for job creation in the province and at the welfare rolls and at unemployment, the statistics -- not the global statistics but the specifics as to where jobs are in B.C. -- show that the rural parts of this province are actually losing jobs. The jobs being created are in the lower mainland and the Okanagan and within government. They are not out in rural B.C.; they are not in the resource industries. They are not jobs created by the legislation of this government but by the movement of people from other NDP jurisdictions into specific areas of the province.
Interjections.
L. Fox: I hear lots of rhetoric from across the floor that I'm not concerned about the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have to understand the downside of every development. There's no question about that. When we look at the Rankin report, which in fact does an expos� of the Kemano completion project, we find that probably the largest percentage of the report deals with mitigation of the impacts. I don't have a problem with that. The present environmental review process provides the opportunity for projects to go through a process. The Cassiar mill went through the process, and that project moved forward. Several other similar projects have gone forward, and all of them had the socioeconomic as well as the environmental impacts examined.
Why the need for this subjective bill? I would suggest that part of the need is because now we have a mechanism.... The proponent has no opportunity to argue what process should be used. This bill allows government to design the process. Not only that, it allows this government to determine that all expenses, including the expenses of the Ministry of Environment, should be paid for by the proponent. I suppose if you looked at that quickly, you would think that perhaps it's reasonable. But from a business point of view, the province should be looking at that process as an investment not only in the environment but also in the economy. We should be looking at partnering industry in these kinds of industrial and commercial investments in order to accommodate them and make sure they go forward in an environmentally friendly way, as well as making sure they're a social and economic benefit.
This legislation does just the opposite. There is no offer here of a partnership with industry or with anything else. It's the heavy hand of government coming down on the proposed investor, suggesting that they're willing look at your project, but they're not sure how long it will take or what it will cost you -- but here's the process. If I were looking to invest in British Columbia, given the corporate capital tax and all the other taxation, charges and fee hikes this government
[ Page 7039 ]
has proposed over the last year and a half, I would move my investment to Chile -- as the mining industry has -- or to other areas of Canada where that investment is wanted and encouraged. We are not doing that in this government right now.
[11:45]
It has been really interesting to hear some of the statements that have been made by the Premier and the government over the course of the spring session. When the Premier was approached about exploration investment leaving British Columbia and going to Chile, he congratulated those people. He said: "We're glad we're sending our investment and our people to foreign countries." The other day the economic development officer suggested that it was only a tax write-off anyway. It may very well be a tax write-off for those mining companies, but it's a tax write-off whether it's spent in Chile or elsewhere. It could very well be spent in British Columbia and help stimulate the economy in communities where a good amount of their commercial business has historically come from exploration companies.
This government fails to understand the importance of those industries in rural parts of the province and fails to understand as well that the rural part of British Columbia and its resource industries go a long way toward meeting British Columbia's financial demands.
I'm extremely disappointed in this government, in the member for Nanaimo and in his dissertation. It's obvious that they do not understand the need for jobs, the need for economic diversity and the need to put together a process which encourages development, not discourages it. There's no question in my mind that I will be voting against this bill, because I believe it's a step in the wrong direction. It's not objective. It is subjective and very negatively subjective at that. Noting the time, I move that we adjourn the debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, have reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Cashore: I move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:11 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
On vote 9: minister's office, $311,041.
Hon. A. Petter: As is customary, I'd like to provide a few introductory comments to the estimates debate. I'm very pleased to present the estimates for 1993-94. I think the recent Speech from the Throne presented members of this House with an important challenge. That challenge was to work together to make changes that are necessary to build a stronger and fairer British Columbia. In the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs we are striving to lay the foundation for such a British Columbia. We're working hard to bring about some real changes for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
The status quo is no longer viable; and when the status quo is no longer viable, change is necessary. That certainly is the case with respect to the situation that aboriginal peoples find themselves in in this province. Indeed, for aboriginal peoples, the status quo has not been viable for a very long period of time. Our history has created an unequal society in which first peoples have been denied their heritage, their dignity, their self-respect and their rightful share of riches in this province.
As a ministry, we have been given an expanded mandate by the provincial government to foster a new relationship with first nations in this province: a relationship that's based upon negotiation rather than confrontation, a relationship that will enable first nations to build a healthy, economically strong and self-reliant future for themselves, and a relationship that is a government-to-government relationship, acknowledging that first nations have a right to be meaningfully involved in decisions that affect them directly and to have a greater degree of self-determination with respect to their own communities.
[10:15]
It's a very challenging mandate. It's one that has had and will continue to have an impact not only on the activities of my ministry but on the activities of government as a whole. One of the things that we determined early on as a ministry was that the organizational structure we inherited from the previous government was not adequate to the new challenges we had set for ourselves. For that reason, with the approval of Treasury Board, we undertook a major reorganization of the ministry in 1992-93. I'd be pleased to discuss some of the elements of that reorganization in the debate that will ensue. The reorganization is on schedule, and I think it has provided us with a framework that will enable us to meet our new expanded mandate and to take this new approach.
We understand that the new relationship we seek can't be imposed and it can't be legislated. It can be achieved only through gradual steps -- through communication, consultation and negotiation, by fostering partnerships and cooperation and by working with all parties by helping to build mutual trust and understanding. It's far more time-consuming an approach than the old top-down style of governing, but we also believe it's a more effective way of going about
[ Page 7040 ]
change. It's also an approach that is very much in keeping with this government's overall commitment to be more open, consultative and inclusive in its style of governing.
We are well aware, for example, that unless all British Columbians feel part of this process of building a new relationship with first nations, the relationship cannot succeed. This is not just a relationship among governments or leaders; it is a relationship that must include all the citizens of this province. I must say that as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I'm very proud of the progress that my ministry has made over the past fiscal year in meeting our very challenging mandate.
I'd like to outline briefly some of the areas in which we have been working, and I think these are reflected in the 1993-94 budget. First, with respect to treaty negotiations, probably the most challenging of the responsibilities that my ministry has been given is to set the framework and lead the negotiations, on behalf of the province, of modern-day treaties with first nations -- really one of the most ambitious treaty negotiation initiatives undertaken in Canada, at least in recent years. I think it's worthwhile reiterating why this initiative is being undertaken. In British Columbia, unlike the rest of Canada, treaties were not entered into in the pre-Confederation period. British Columbia remains a sorry example in that regard, unlike not only the rest of Canada, but the United States as well. We have very few treaties in this province. The end result is that 120 years after Confederation and British Columbia's entry into Confederation, the questions of aboriginal land rights remain unaddressed in vast portions of this province. That unaddressed issue has profound social, economic and political consequences for all British Columbians.
I have referred before to some of the costs of not addressing those issues. In brief, those costs include continued poverty and unemployment in aboriginal communities, continued conflict and litigation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, and tension and confrontation between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities. For all of us, there is continued economic uncertainty -- the loss of investment dollars from failing to come to grips, failing to get together and failing to address this outstanding issue. For that reason, I believe that British Columbians have made it clear in a number of ways that they would like to see this matter resolved. They want us to get on with the job of negotiating this issue for the benefit of all British Columbians.
What do we hope to achieve through this process? We hope to resolve many of the land use conflicts that continue to set apart aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests in this province. We hope to create a much more stable economic climate that will lead to greater employment and investment within and outside aboriginal communities. We also believe that there are tremendous opportunities to reduce social costs, costs that have flowed to all British Columbians due to the failure to support aboriginal communities and recognize aboriginal rights. These costs have resulted in a very sorry cycle of poverty and dependence for aboriginal peoples over the past century.
We also believe that the growth of self-reliant aboriginal economies and financially vibrant first nations will not only be beneficial for those communities, but will stand to produce very positive economic spinoffs for all British Columbians. We're already seeing some evidence of that through some of the joint-venture activities that are starting to take place in this province. I was very pleased, for example, to be in Burns Lake last week for the opening of a Specialty Wood division involving aboriginal and non-aboriginal partners in a new joint venture.
It's important to note that the role of the province in this negotiating process is that of representing the interests of the province as a whole. We will go into the treaty negotiation process very mindful that our role is to represent all British Columbians. For that reason we've already staked out some very clear positions. One is that private property is not going to be on the table; we will not negotiate private property rights. Secondly, interests of non-aboriginal parties must and will be respected in the negotiation process.
I think we've made some significant strides towards this goal, in establishing the necessary process that will now lead to treaty negotiations. Most of those steps are familiar to members of this House, but I think they're worth reviewing.
One of the most significant, of course, is the establishment of the B.C. Treaty Commission, which has been charged with the responsibility of overseeing the treaty negotiation process. I was very privileged last September to join with the Premier in signing the Treaty Commission agreement. We took another important step last month with the appointment of the chief commissioner and the other commissioners. Two weeks ago in this House the Legislature gave final approval to the Treaty Commission Act. This will give the commission the stability and permanence it requires, to carry out the very challenging job of overseeing treaty negotiations and ensuring the process is conducted in a way that is fair, just and equitable for all British Columbians, and in particular for those first nations who participate in that process. We have, through the B.C. Treaty Commission, a workable made-in-B.C. process that can serve the interests of many -- although perhaps not all -- first nations. I think it's a tremendous first step along the road towards treaty negotiations. We are very hopeful that the commission will be functional by the fall, and that we can commence the first stage of negotiations later in this fiscal year.
One of the issues that remains outstanding is that of cost-sharing. The question of how costs are apportioned between the federal and provincial governments has been controversial between the governments. Our position -- which is, indeed, the same position of that of the previous government -- is that the provincial government does bear some responsibility, that we do have an obligation to contribute a fair share, but that the primary responsibility remains with the federal government. Negotiations have been continuing. We have been in those negotiations advancing that position. I am optimistic that those negotiations may reach conclusion in the near future. Unlike the federal government, it's been our position that we could
[ Page 7041 ]
commence negotiations with first nations in parallel with those negotiations, as has been done in other provinces. It's our fervent hope, though, that we can conclude cost-sharing negotiations in the very near future and that that will not be necessary. Certainly we're working hard to that end, and I remain optimistic in that regard. At the end of the day, however, we must ensure that the interests of the province and of British Columbia taxpayers are protected in reaching such an agreement.
With respect to the Nisga'a negotiations, I think members are aware that this set of negotiations, which the province has participated in, has been ongoing for the last three years or so. It's a very important set of negotiations for that reason. We revamped the negotiating structure and appointed a new negotiating team in August of last year, and we included provincial officials from the local area as well as a representative from the private sector. I think that new team has been a doing an excellent job in taking proposals to the table, in representing the provincial interests and, as importantly, in including the local community in the negotiations through consultation mechanisms. In November the first interim protection measures agreement in this province -- at least in the last century -- was signed. It is a one-year agreement by the three parties involved in the Nisga'a claim. It establishes processes to ensure that the interests of the Nisga'a and other resource users and land users are balanced during the final stages of treaty negotiations. It represents a significant new development and the second-last step in reaching a final treaty -- the next step being an agreement in principle before the actual treaty itself.
We're very pleased with the support that the interim protection measures agreement has received. I was particularly pleased that it was supported by the Leader of the Third Party in this House, who had a role in initiating the provincial involvement in those negotiations. It remains our goal to try to achieve an agreement in principle with the Nisga'a in 1993. I'm hopeful that we can do that, although it will not be easy to achieve that goal. The federal government has recently changed its negotiating structure and personnel. That may facilitate a resolution; it may also result in some further delays.
I want to talk a little about third-party interests. I know there is tremendous concern in the province and in the Legislature that the province lives up to its responsibility to third-party interests and, indeed, to the community as a whole. We're very keenly aware that there are sectors of the population -- including but not limited to major resource users -- who have a very real and legitimate interest in the new direction we have embarked upon. Those interests need to know how negotiations will affect them. They need to play a meaningful role in those negotiations, so their voices can be heard in, for example, formulating provincial mandates or at least in advising the provincial government on those mandates. We have committed ourselves to ensuring that interested third parties, including local governments, are involved in the negotiation process, both treaty and pre-treaty. That is not simply because of the necessity of involving them, but because we believe, as I said at the outset, that the new relationships we create must be relationships that go beyond government and embrace all British Columbians. It's critical that British Columbians feel included in this process of change.
At the provincial level, together with the federal government, we have recently accepted the recommendations of the third-party advisory committee that was established by the previous government and has been continued by this government. We have accepted the recommendations to reform that process and to ready it for the negotiations that are to follow. That will involve some sectoral committees and a much more meaningful structure. It will involve the participation of the federal government so that third parties will not have to engage in two consultation processes, one with each level of government. Rather, there can be -- as the expression goes -- one-stop shopping for participation in third-party advisory processes.
There has been a tremendous spirit of cooperation around that third-party table. The Premier addressed the group last week, and I believe that we now have a good spirit around the table and a structure that is workable. I'm very hopeful that that will place us in a good position to give to the provincial interests that have a stake in the outcome of treaties some comfort that their voices will be heard.
In terms of local consultation, we understand that local communities must be brought into the process where negotiations may affect their interests. The major initiatives that we have taken in this regard have been in the Nisga'a negotiations. Our new negotiating team has gone to great lengths to create an effective local third-party advisory process. They have been constrained to some extent by the limitations of the framework agreement that we inherited. Nevertheless, during my recent visits, my sense is that there is a greater degree of satisfaction among third-party groups within the Nisga'a claim area that they are at last being involved in the negotiation process, and are having some real input and some really meaningful opportunities to make their voices heard.
The consultation has not just been with third-party sectoral groups, but also with the communities at large through open houses and information-sharing by the negotiation team. As we move to other regional negotiations, we will use the experience of the Nisga'a to develop further local consultation models that will satisfy, we hope, the desire of local communities to be consulted, to be involved in the negotiations.
Another key institution we believe must be involved in the negotiation process is that of municipalities. Municipalities have a unique role as elective representatives of local communities, and we have recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Union of B.C. Municipalities that ensures that their unique role is recognized and that municipalities will have the assurance that issues that directly affect them, that are of interest to them, will not be taken to the negotiation table without prior consultation and effective communication between those municipalities and the provincial government.
[ Page 7042 ]
In addition to that, the Premier and I have given our undertaking that, through our negotiators, we will seek at the framework stage of negotiations assurances that municipal representatives can be included as part of provincial teams to sit as observers for those stages of negotiations that have a direct impact upon municipalities. We believe that municipalities, as elected officials and deriving their authority from provincial legislation, do have an interest which entitles them to that level of participation.
[10:30]
We also recognize that public information-sharing is a very important responsibility of the provincial government, and indeed of other governments and institutions which are going to be involved in this process. We understand that British Columbians do have a thirst for knowledge about what will be going on through the negotiation process and about how the process works. At the Nisga'a negotiations, we have participated in a joint public information plan with the federal government and the Nisga'a to ensure that there is information made available to the local community concerning the nature of the negotiation process. During 1993-94 our government will be involved in providing public information at the provincial level as well, both directly and through cooperative efforts with other governments and perhaps the Treaty Commission itself.
As we move toward modern-day treaties, our responsibility to British Columbians is clear: we must ensure that people in every corner of the province not only understand what they are doing but are involved and consulted each step of the way. The steps I've outlined are, I think, an indication that our sentiments in this regard are more than expressions of goodwill. They reflect a real determination that we are acting in very concrete ways to ensure that British Columbians, those with a special interest and those with a general interest, are brought into this process and made to feel that they are included within it, not shut out.
I want to touch briefly as well upon some pre-treaty initiatives that we have undertaken. We're aware that the negotiation of treaties is a very complex process. There are many first nations. It will not be accomplished overnight. We will not resolve all issues by next year, or even in the next few years. For that reason it's important that some significant steps be taken now to address issues that simply can't await the outcome of treaty negotiations: longstanding issues on which first nations have not been adequately treated in the past, or issues in which conflict can be reduced through cooperative efforts. We have been working very hard at instituting such initiatives aimed at reducing conflicts over land and resource controversies in the province, and at addressing some of the immediate social and economic needs of aboriginal people.
I can't possibly cover them all in my introductory comments, but I'd like just to address a couple. One approach we have taken recently that is very much aimed at trying to resolve conflicts in the resource area -- in this case, fish and wildlife -- is the work we have done with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks in developing interim guidelines for aboriginal use on fish and wildlife, which were released in March. It's an example of how cooperation can work; and I'm very hopeful that these interim guidelines, and the consultation process that's going to flow from it, will succeed in bringing groups together that have previously been at odds -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal fish and hunting interests -- and in getting them to work in a cooperative spirit. We have seen some evidence of that already.
The guidelines came about because of a number of court decisions in which aboriginal rights were recognized, but were defined in such a way that there was really a legal vacuum created. In the face of those court decisions, it was difficult for the province to enforce standards with respect to aboriginal hunting and fishing. What we needed was a set of guidelines that respected the rights as articulated in the court decisions, but also spoke to the general interests of fish and wildlife users and to the need to ensure that conservation was maintained as a primary interest.
I think we have succeeded in doing that in the interim guidelines. We have proposed a process and a set of guidelines that seek to recognize that aboriginal rights do exist and must be respected, to place an overriding importance on conservation, and to balance the recognition of aboriginal rights against the understandable desire of other resource users to have access to fish and wildlife resources. I was very pleased to be able to attend the annual convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and to see aboriginal and non-aboriginal people working together to discuss these issues and to talk about how they could work together through the consultation process that we have established. I'm very hopeful that this will produce a much more cooperative environment and a final set of guidelines that will be recognized by both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities as serving their mutual interests.
Some other initiatives that have been undertaken include the Native Forestry Council that was established by the Minister of Forests in cooperation with myself. It is working with industry representatives and aboriginal representatives to try to find new strategies, new ways to involve aboriginal communities and aboriginal people in the forest sector. A tremendous amount of initiative has already been shown around that council table, and we're very hopeful that that will produce some very concrete results in terms of involving aboriginal people more in the forestry sector. In addition, last year the government provided over $400,000 of funding to aboriginal communities and organizations through the sustainable environment fund for a range of integrated resource management projects and environmental protection initiatives. Those are just three examples of how we are trying to instil a more cooperative approach in the pre-treaty period on the resource side.
Another important focus is to support first nations in the pre-treaty period in addressing some very urgent social and economic issues that threaten the health of many aboriginal communities. In this regard, my staff have been working with line ministries on a range of social and economic initiatives that are designed to
[ Page 7043 ]
assist aboriginal communities in developing their own solutions -- solutions that can better meet the very real social needs they experience, rather than the solutions that have been imposed upon them in the past. Again, I'll give just a few examples.
The Ministry of Women's Equality allocated some $2 million in grants to aboriginal communities to address concerns regarding family violence, to assist aboriginal communities in developing a holistic approach to aboriginal family violence issues. The Ministry of Health, through the Aboriginal Health Council, has directed approximately $3 million to aboriginal addiction and mental health services in communities across the province. Last year the Ministry of Social Services signed an agreement with the Cowichan first nation that will allow them to assume greater authority over child welfare services. Such agreements are being contemplated for other first nations.
My ministry has also been working to improve existing programs that fall within my own ministry's realm of responsibility. In particular, the First Citizens' Fund business program has been subject to review by a legislative committee. I should add, however, that there is also work going on with the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade in trying to develop a joint economic development strategy to better meet the needs of aboriginal communities. We will be looking forward to the recommendations of the legislative committee, and to working with first nations in the development of this larger strategy.
We also continued the bursary program for aboriginal students last year, which takes place under the First Citizen's Fund bursary program. This year we have budgeted some $90,000 for bursaries. Last year we awarded just over $72,000. As well, we increased the allocation to British Columbia's 21 native friendship centres last year, from $22,000 to $30,000 per centre. I think the native friendship centres -- for anyone who has visited them -- are an incredible example of what can be done on limited budgets. Those centres provide a vast array of services at very low cost. In my view, they're deserving of additional support. I was very sorry to see, however, that the federal government has continued to pare back its support to friendship centres.
An important issue to aboriginal people is the ongoing loss of their heritage and language. They see the preservation of their traditional languages and cultures, quite rightly, as an important key to rebuilding their senses of self-esteem and self-reliance. My ministry is continuing to support the First People's Heritage, Language and Culture Council. Last year we allocated an additional $700,000 to the council to provide grants to three aboriginal communities for capital projects -- a first for that program. The Heiltsuk Indian band received a $300,000 grant for the construction of a traditional big house; the Secwepemc Cultural Education Society received a $300,000 grant to put toward the cost of renovating their museum, office and cultural facilities; and the Hartley Bay Indian band received a $100,000 grant for a cultural centre. All of these grants were awarded by the council with funds provided by the provincial government. The council has continued to provide operating grants as well as capital for programs.
An integral component of the new, positive relationship we are forging with first nations is a commitment to try to deal with first nations on a government-to-government basis. We are putting that commitment into action, first and foremost, by moving towards the negotiation of modern-day treaties. But we are also trying to put that commitment into action in the interim by establishing a new form of relationship with first nations in the pre-treaty period. My ministry has been holding discussions with the First Nations Summit and with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs about setting up government-to-government forums for addressing policy issues. Indeed, the first meeting of such a forum will be later this week with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. We believe that such forums can provide an opportunity for both first nations and government to bring to the table policy issues that are of mutual concern -- policy issues that continue to separate first nations from attaining their goals, and which in many cases are also detrimental to the provincial interest. Through these forums we hope that we can start to tackle some of these outstanding issues in the pre-treaty period.
More generally throughout government, we have also tried to develop an approach that involves greater consultation with and involvement of first nations in all aspects of government decision-making. It involves first nations representatives on many -- if not most -- of the boards and commissions that make decisions on behalf of the provincial government. We believe that the voice of first nations is a very important voice that should not be shut out of those processes.
In summary, we have a commitment to work toward real change in this province that will lead to relationships based upon equality and respect, to assist aboriginal peoples in fulfilling their aspirations for self-determining and self-sustaining communities. It will produce economic and social benefits not just for aboriginal communities, but for all British Columbians. In this International Year of the World's Indigenous People, we are acting in partnership with first nations, third parties, other government ministries and the federal government to lay a firm and lasting foundation for that future. I very much believe that partnerships are the key here.
We recognize that the course of action we've embarked upon as a ministry and as a government is a challenging one, and that the implications go far beyond this province and this country; but we believe it's the right course of action for British Columbia. It's a course of action that has recently been endorsed by this House and by the people of British Columbia, through the support for the B.C. Treaty Commission. By moving forward toward the negotiation of fair and just treaties with first nations, by forging new relationships, by developing new mechanisms, we believe that we can build a stronger, fairer and more prosperous British Columbia for all British Columbians. Those conclude my opening remarks.
[ Page 7044 ]
V. Anderson: I want to thank the minister very much for his opening remarks, laying out in quite a fair and concise manner the directions in which the government is planning to go in the area of aboriginal affairs. We are all aware of the importance and significance of this direction within -- and indeed beyond -- British Columbia.
We're also very much aware of the history through which we have all lived over this period, in which newcomers to this land tended to monopolize and to push the original residents away from focuses of power, away from the opportunity to maintain and sustain their own lifestyles. We have that history to recognize and overcome, and I'm pleased that we as a people within the province are beginning to move in that particular direction.
However, I'm also aware how difficult that will be, because of the experience and unconscious thought forms that have been created over this period, both within the aboriginal community about the non-aboriginal community, and in the non-aboriginal community about the aboriginal community. The cultures that have grown up side by side have had a kind of invisible barrier between them. A lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings have been part of this process, and they will be very difficult to overcome.
It's interesting, though, that perhaps one of the greatest factors in overcoming that cultural misunderstanding is that we have become a multicultural country. Because of that, we're having to learn to live with a whole variety of cultural perspectives and approaches. Some of the people who have moved into this land have a cultural approach and perspective very similar to that of the aboriginal people. So there are allies within the larger community who now think in the way that has been the historical process of thought within the aboriginal community. I think that's an important asset that often gets overlooked.
[10:45]
One reality is that we need to remember there are different approaches in thought forms between the aboriginal and what has been the mainstay of the other cultures within the Canadian context out of a European background. So when we come together at this point, we come together with different meanings of words and different processes for making decisions and coming to conclusions. Whereas one body wants to work by consensus, another body tends to want to work by majority vote, and those two different processes have to be worked out and balanced as we work together.
I'm also aware that we're coming into a context now subsequent to what we had a few years ago, when there was a feeling of continuous growth and plenty of resources to go around, and we would have no concerns about the future. There were lots of fish, forest and mining resources. On every hand the province was beginning to expand, and there would be room and a place for everyone. During that period people became complacent. Now we are entering into another period in our province, and apart from the aboriginal concerns, people are concerned about the shortage of forest and fishing resources, the shortage of mining resources and, indeed, the shortage of the opportunity for young people particularly to find a meaningful place and an economic place within our province. With that period of uncertainty and provincial downturn in security, the question of sharing those resources and coming together to a common understanding between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people takes on a different dimension. Where there is insecurity, it's harder to get understanding and acceptance of different points of view.
I do appreciate the way the minister has gone about trying to include as many people as possible in the discussions and in the planning that's being undertaken within the province. My experience, though, is that although there are concerns among the persons who are primarily involved with what we generally think of as the third-party interests -- those involved in mining or forestry or mineral developments, or municipal officers who are trying to work out tax bases and other concerns within their communities -- beyond that kind of group of involved people there is a larger number of people within the province who are not directly involved in the negotiations. They do not even understand that negotiations or processes are taking place. All they are hearing at the present moment is what they read in the headlines in the newspapers. Unfortunately, headlines in newspapers are never helpful to create understanding and accommodation between people of different interests.
I have a concern that as well as bringing together "the stakeholders," who are most closely involved, there be a process in place to reach out to the larger community, which at this point is not in touch, except through headlines, with what's happening within the community at large. It's in the coffee shops and in the social gatherings that you hear the comments that reflect the misunderstanding and the concerns that are really out there. These are the voters who in due course will have to make the final decisions and maintain the directions in which we go. I trust that we will work together to ensure that the general public become aware of what is happening. Indeed, I think we have to make sure that we're not seen to be trying to lead the public, because we are becoming even more aware that the public is resisting people who are trying to lead them in a certain direction. We must become aware that we need to be following the public. The minister has said that he believes the public is very much in favour of the direction in which the government is going, but we need to make sure of that connection between government activities and the feelings of the people. I mention the feelings of the people. We can rationalize and plan and organize, but oftentimes within that process we miss out the emotional concern that people have about how they live and work and play with one another.
I would also mention that I think there is a feeling of guilt in this process among many people that has been engendered by many comments and directions -- recognizing that we have not been fair and just with the aboriginal people. When people are in a process of guilt, it's very easy for them to become negative and
[ Page 7045 ]
defensive. So I think we have to acknowledge the guilt that is out there, and also the feeling out there that many people do not understand what is required of them in order to help make the changes come about or to help them understand and accept the changes that are part of the community life which will affect them directly.
One of the unfortunate realities is that the educational system imposed on aboriginal and non-aboriginal people has not enabled the youth of our community to grow up together with shared appreciation of each other. That inability has now created an adult generation further apart from each other than we would normally think should be the case, as we have lived together over this period of time.
There are many balancing forces, then, that need to be taken into account as we work together. We will be discussing the reorganization within the ministry in order to undertake this process. But we're also very much aware that sometimes reorganization can compound problems rather than solve them, and in reorganization itself we do not change the process unless somehow we have also changed the inherent attitudes. So I trust we will look at some of these activities and come to a broader understanding within the government and the public at large of the processes undertaken by this ministry in attempting to involve not only those who are closest to the actual decision-making process, but also people on the fringe who have to live with the results of what we do.
Economic changes need to be made. There are cultural changes that we need to become more aware of, and social interactions will be fundamental in the long run to our ability to live and work with each other. So I welcome the opportunity of sharing with the minister the plans and the processes in more detail, that we might have a sense of direction about where we are going as we follow the lead of the people in our province.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd just say that most of the member's comments were responsive to my opening remarks, and I very much appreciated the constructive nature. I agree very much with the member about the potential for misunderstanding and, in particular, the difficulties of the shortage of resources. Diminishing access to resources makes this a much more difficult task than it would have been if we were in a period when the resource pie was ever-expanding. I also agree very much with the theme that it's not enough to deal just with those who are most interested -- in an economic sense, at least. There is a need to reach out to the broader public and hear some of the comments about the education system. I'd very much appreciate suggestions the member might have as to how we might do that. I indicated in my opening remarks that the province will be engaging in some direct, public information-sharing campaigns to raise awareness. But I also think that the Treaty Commission has an important role to play in explaining how the process will unfold, and it can do so with an independent voice, which I think is helpful.
Also, I think there is a strong desire on the part of first nations and the federal government to work cooperatively in providing information to the public. I've also suggested, in the case of local negotiations, that we must involve the broader public as well in developing an interest in those negotiations as they commence in their own communities. To that end, a number of open houses were held in the area of the Nisga'a claim in which we have experimented with some different models. Some have been more successful than others, and through that experimentation we hope to improve our efforts.
I agree with the member: reorganization of the ministry is not always a good thing. But I think the reorganization we have is a very important step. I should explain somewhat anecdotally to the member that when I became minister, for the first number of months I was never quite sure who would come through the door on a particular issue. That's partly because the ministry had grown up in fits and starts in various stages, but hadn't really been prepared for the task that even the previous government had set for it and certainly not for the task this government had.
It is important to understand that within the ministry there are some very distinct functions. To have those functions represented as distinct within an organizational structure is very helpful and much more efficient in terms of relating to other aspects of government and the public. One of those functions is to represent aboriginal communities and interests with the government. It's not quite an advocacy role, but it is a role almost of an ombuds agency in ensuring that other arms of government are acting responsively to aboriginal communities within their existing policies. We now have an aboriginal relations division that is charged with that responsibility. It previously fell to officials in a variety of different divisions defined by natural resources or social policy but not articulated in that way.
On the other hand, we have a responsibility that in a sense flows in the other direction, to represent the interest of the government and, through the government, the public at the negotiating table. For that reason it is important that it be kept separate from the previous function, and we've created a treaty negotiations division which is clearly mandated with the task of representing the larger public interest and the government interest in the treaty negotiation process. I think it's very important to keep those distinct from each other, not only in terms of efficiency but also in terms of assuring the public that we have a clear understanding of our roles as a ministry and where those roles could potentially conflict. We have kept them distinct in order to facilitate the most efficient and effective way of carrying out those functions.
In addition, we have a very important function in terms of providing policy support for negotiations and for other arms of government. By creating a separate policy unit that can draw on all the initiatives, we can develop a consistent set of policies that will serve the interests not only of the ministry but of the government as a whole. Previously, policy was done in a far more ad
[ Page 7046 ]
hoc fashion. One body wasn't necessarily talking to another. We now have a policy division that I think can help ensure that our policy is developed in a way that works for government and for the people of British Columbia far more effectively and, finally, provides administrative and communications support to the rest of the ministry.
I do think it's important -- not reorganization for reorganization's sake -- that we have an organization that can do the job. I think the changes we have made have now produced that organizational structure. I know with some degree of certainty who will be coming through the door or, more importantly, why they're coming through the door on a given day to discuss a given issue. We're still in the process of implementing that reorganization. I think that will serve the public and the government much better in the long run than the somewhat chaotic structure that was in place previously.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. I would like to welcome Garry Wouters, the deputy minister, as part of the discussion. Perhaps the minister would like to introduce some of the other staff, so we'd be aware of them as well.
Hon. A. Petter: As the member indicated, Garry Wouters, my deputy minister, is seated next to me. Behind me are Scott Browning, whose title is director of finance and administration, and -- oh, I'm just doing terribly here; I'm sorry -- is Kelly-Ann Speck, whose title is assistant deputy minister of management services. The third person behind me is Nancy Carter, who is a policy analyst with the ministry.
V. Anderson: I have a great deal of difficulty with names both within the ministry and in politics -- two areas where you should best be able to remember names. I learned a long time ago that you just have to live with some of the disabilities you have. In particular, I remember that when I asked one fellow his name, he said: "I'm not going to tell you, because the last three times you didn't remember anyway." My daughter would say: "No, it's not me; I'm the other one." That's one of the realities, so I can appreciate that.
[11:00]
I'd like, initially at least, to follow through on some of the administrative structure, using that format in order to get at some of the topics and areas. I'd like to begin with the administration of policy, planning and research. I thank the ministry for the briefing they gave us ahead of time. It has given us a plan to work with, which, hopefully, will be helpful to all of us. We could begin in policy, planning and research and perhaps get some details as to definitions and undertakings within that division. We might start out with treaty mandates. Why are the treaty mandates in this section and how do they differ from the treaty negotiations that we will be dealing with later. It's the treaty mandates I am asking about. What in particular is involved in that section at this point?
Hon. A. Petter: There were two basic reasons why it was felt to be desirable to maintain the treaty mandates component of policy-making within policy and planning rather than in the treaty negotiations division. One is simply that it allows one to develop a critical mass of people working on policy who can learn from one another's experience and who can work together. Keeping policy together, therefore, and ensuring that our treaty mandate policy coincides with our pre-treaty policy, for example, and with other policies, made good sense.
The other rationale is that there is a feeling that it also makes good sense to keep the policy development for treaties one step removed from the actual institution that is engaged in the treaty negotiation. This ensures that there is some monitoring as mandates are developed, that they are developed consistently over various negotiations, and between the negotiations -- and of what is happening elsewhere within the ministry and within government. It also ensures that the negotiators are not driving policy from the negotiating table, but that policy is being monitored with a mind to its overall implications. So there are some good reasons for separating institutionally the development of policy from the actual negotiators who carry out that policy, to ensure that the negotiations are being done in a way that's consistent with broader policy objectives than simply achieving a resolution at the negotiation table.
V. Anderson: Are the treaty mandates involved in discussions around the Treaty 8 process that has been ongoing in the province for some time? Are there other particular pre-treaty mandates in which this treaty mandate committee is involved? What is the nature, besides policy, of the actual processes that they are involved in at the moment?
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to Treaty 8, the treaty mandates division doesn't have a significant role to play. The reason for that is that the major issue in terms of new negotiations, at the current time at least, with respect to Treaty 8 -- it may change through the Treaty Commission -- has to do with certain bands. In particular, I'm thinking of the McLeod Lake band, which wishes to adhere to Treaty 8. The policy for that negotiation is in a sense already determined by the treaty. The question as to whether or not the first nation adheres, I suppose, is a policy question that we have addressed our minds to, and perhaps treaty mandates had some role in that -- I don't know. But the actual negotiation of adhesion claims is governed by the mandate that's provided by the treaty itself, so it would not be something that would occupy much of the treaty mandates division's time.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. Would you be able to share, since that's a policy process within the treaty mandates division, some of the key policies that have been developed within that process, which in a sense will be driving the relationships -- at least initially -- as the government is reaching out?
[ Page 7047 ]
Hon. A. Petter: There is a vast array of issues, from broader questions concerning questions of ratification and how one deals with issues of certainty in treaties through to more specific issues about how one deals with the valuation of land, what forms of land tenure might be provided through treaty negotiations and how one achieves that while protecting the interests of third parties. All of those policies, from the most general to the most specific, are the subject of work by Treaty Mandates. Indeed, Treaty Mandates has to attend to that full array because while, for the most part, we are dealing with general issues as we approach the Treaty Commission process, we are at the same time dealing with much more specific issues in the Nisga'a claim. For that reason, Treaty Mandates has had to deal with everything, ranging from the more specific issues I've given examples of through to the more general.
V. Anderson: That leads to things you have referred to before. I presume that in treaty mandates, one is dealing with the nature of land and what kinds of land claims might be reviewed, with resources and what kinds of rights for timber, mineral and water resources might be involved in those policies. As well, I presume one is looking at the types of aboriginal government and non-aboriginal government, and the relationships between these governances, and what direction one goes within those policies in order to establish the format in which policy would be understood not only by the aboriginal people but by the government. I'm also trying to get at how the general community will understand the trade-offs. What is -- in the minds of some people -- being lost, and -- in the minds of other people -- being shared?
Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'd make two observations in that regard. The first has to do with the fact that in developing mandates, for example, in the Nisga'a claim, we are working with third-party groups, municipal representatives and others through the consultation processes. So there is a loop, as it were, from our own policy development through that consultation process and back to ensure that the kinds of proposals we're putting forward are ones that will be acceptable to the particular interest who would be concerned with them in the local community.
In a more general sense, we're obviously looking at a number of variables in developing these mandates. One is to ensure that any particular resolution in one part of the province is one that will not have implications elsewhere, that it will fit within what will be acceptable throughout subsequent negotiations across the province.
In addition, we have already staked out the view that fee simple interest should not be affected. That's clearly a very important variable -- the question of protecting third-party resource interests, of trying to effect solutions that will result in greater economic cooperation rather than simply displacement of current economic activities. So those are some of the general variables that, along with others, inform the development of specific mandates in, for example, the Nisga'a claim.
V. Anderson: Are there policy papers on some of these areas that are available for the public to read and to get some kind of understanding of policy as it's developed? While recognizing that these policy papers are in transition all the time, are there directions that the public might share?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure the member can appreciate there is some sensitivity here, because one doesn't want to go to negotiations having disclosed one's mandate. One tends to end up having to live with the full extent of one's mandate in that event, and that's not the way negotiations are supposed to work. However, we are trying to generate information material -- and have done so in the case of the Nisga'a claim -- that gives a general sense of the values and principles we bring to the table. Further information is in preparation right now, to share that information more broadly province-wide.
In terms of specific mandates for specific negotiations, no, that kind of information is not available for sharing with the public. It is shared in the course of negotiations with third-party interests and local groups on a confidential basis, however, in the development and refinement of mandates.
V. Anderson: It seems to me that one of the confusions we have out in the community at large is in the area of general definitions -- and I know they're still in process as well -- of the topics being discussed, and of the variety of answers that might be available, without saying which of these is the best or right answer, so that people can begin to be involved in the negotiation before it is finalized. After it's finalized there's always the feeling that you've been told what it is, and now it's too late to participate or to come to understand. I'm asking about some initial definitions, talking points and perspectives that indicate the variety of possibilities that might go on, so the people can be a part of this.
Hon. A. Petter: We do have information packages, as I've indicated previously, that deal in a general way. We are working with the federal government, and will be working with the Treaty Commission, on development of material that I think will provide to the public some general sense.
I do agree, however, as we get to particular negotiations, that if we expect the public to accept the outcome it's going to be necessary for us to start to sensitize the public to the possibilities beforehand. That will happen in a number of ways. In the case of the Nisga'a claim, for example, there was a fair degree of anxiety prior to the interim protection measures agreement. However, once that agreement became public and people were able to see it, a comfort level was developed. That agreement has now resulted in further discussion, which has provided some comfort to the community. I think the member is right, and I think we're still exploring in this regard. The Nisga'a were somewhat handicapped by the confidentiality clause. But as we work toward solutions and as we have a sense of not just one piece of the pie but the larger picture, I
[ Page 7048 ]
agree that we must find ways to communicate, at least in a general way, the direction in which we're going, in order to get some sense of whether the community can support that direction and also to give the community some time to evaluate and to develop a comfort level. How we do that will require some cooperation among the three parties. In the Nisga'a claim we are working cooperatively fairly well, and I think the Nisga'a understand that in order for the treaty to ultimately stand the test of time, there must be public acceptance of it.
[11:15]
Around the Treaty Commission process, I think, there are even greater opportunities because we're essentially starting afresh. I think we can work with the Treaty Commission and the first nations that are participating in the process in defining ways to share information not only with the third-party groups but beyond them. The involvement of the municipalities may be an important vehicle for doing that. But again, we're feeling our way here, and it's going to be a tough balancing act between not wanting to prejudice the negotiations and wanting to facilitate public understanding, acceptance and involvement.
V. Anderson: I agree with you that the involvement of the municipal authorities is very important, particularly if those municipal authorities can involve the people they represent. Again, even the municipal authorities can be seen as separate from the people and not representative of them, and as doing things on their behalf without their involvement. Perhaps we'll touch on this again.
I'll move on to the aboriginal policy division, as against the treaty mandates division, and try to get some clarity as to the differences or similarities in each of these areas. We don't want to criticize until we know exactly what is happening. So we'll look at the focus and functions of the aboriginal policy division compared to the treaty mandates division.
Hon. A. Petter: The major distinction here is that the aboriginal policy division is there to support government policy in a more general sense than just in the case of treaty negotiations. It is therefore involved in a vast array of issues in which aboriginal interests or aboriginal concerns are raised. I mentioned earlier, for example, the development of Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks guidelines with respect to fish and wildlife resources. The aboriginal policy division was very much involved in that and in other forms of negotiation that are not treaty negotiations. For example, there are policy issues around highway rights-of-way and the use of order-in-council 1036, which is historically an instrument used to resolve -- not particularly satisfactorily, I think -- some of those conflicts.
I can't give a comprehensive list. I'll be happy to talk about any specific questions. Wherever you look at government and a policy issue -- not a program delivery issue -- arises that engages the aboriginal community in some way, there has probably been some involvement by the aboriginal policy division. That involvement may be greater or smaller depending on the ministry's capacity in terms of policy development. Certainly we have a role in at least monitoring policy development throughout government and trying to ensure that it is consistent with the government's overall goals and objectives with respect to our new relationship with aboriginal people.
V. Anderson: Thank you, I appreciate that. In going through a variety of other ministries' estimates, I've discovered again and again that when I raised questions about aboriginal involvement and programs in aboriginal areas, the general response I got was: "Go talk to Aboriginal Affairs." But I also got the feeling that there was very little awareness, other than in the specific program that they might be involved in, of where the aboriginal concerns tied in. Yet I know that aboriginal concerns and affairs are very much a part of every ministry of the government. Are there some general policy outlines available that have become a basis for operation of all the ministries?
Hon. A. Petter: The government, through the work of my ministry and the planning secretariat, is in the process of working on an overall strategic plan in the area of aboriginal policy that will set out a framework in a more general sense. That process has been ongoing and has involved numerous ministries. Rather than saying there is a particular document that does this, the answer is that there is a process in which we are building policy cooperatively. Strategic planning, of course, is a process that never ends; it goes on and on. So there are papers that try to look at policy overall.
In reference to the general comment made by the hon. member, it's my impression that there is a much greater awareness in the ministries of aboriginal issues and a much greater capacity to deal with policy issues relating to aboriginal peoples today than there was a year and a half ago. I share his sentiment that there is a ways to go.
V. Anderson: I realize that the policy is in development and is ongoing. Are there two or three key aspects of that policy that are driving it at this point, which lay the framework in which ministries would evaluate their programs compared to normal programs, as they develop this awareness and these programs?
Hon. A. Petter: There are some general approaches, but they are not common across all sectors. The reason for that is jurisdictional -- federal-provincial to some extent -- and also in terms of court pronouncements in certain areas. In the land and resource side, for example, certain policies flow from court decisions. In the case of sustenance use of fish and wildlife resources, there are some very clear directions from the courts that priority must be accorded to first nations. So that informs the policy development. Also on the land and resource side, there is a clear direction that at a minimum -- and we'll await the outcome of further court cases on this -- first nations must be adequately consulted and their interests accommo-
[ Page 7049 ]
dated, if possible, prior to resource allocation decisions being made which could adversely affect their interests. So on the resource side the policy framework is very much informed by those court decisions. In addition to that, I must say that we have built on that policy in order to ensure greater participation of first nations beyond what is strictly required. In the case of the court decisions on sustenance use, for example, we have tried to get ahead of those decisions and how they might be visited in further court cases by developing a cooperative approach.
On the social side of things, there certainly is a policy orientation approach. The one I outlined in my opening remarks is reflected in the development of a strategic plan. That approach is basically to try to find ways in which we can better support aboriginal communities in meeting their own needs, particularly in areas in which there has been a demonstrated capacity to meet those needs. I mentioned earlier, for example, the signing of various agreements to provide greater authority over child welfare matters. Similarly, in the case of family violence initiatives, rather than dispensing funds from some central provincial agency, funds were dispensed through a council composed of representatives of various aboriginal groups in a way that aboriginal communities would best be able to utilize those funds to meet their needs. Similarly, in the Ministry of Health there has been a sensitivity in trying to identify funds and allocate them in a way -- as the Seaton report suggested -- that identifies the peculiar needs of aboriginal communities and recognizes that the aboriginal communities may be in the best position to determine how best to address those needs. So there is certainly an orientation in that regard as well.
V. Anderson: I appreciate those directions and the general terms of them. We talk about dealing with aboriginal governments, so are there particular movements to listen to particular aboriginal bands and to give them the same opportunity to make presentations as you would to municipal governments? Are you going to give those bands and councils an opportunity to make their presentations on the kinds of things they would like to have and the kinds of processes they would like to have in place?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I think the answer is that there are indeed initiatives in that regard. The one I mentioned in my introductory remarks is the one I would point to as the most obvious example, namely, that we are in the process of establishing -- and by the end of this week will have established -- the first of what will be at least two and perhaps more tables with first nations representatives to sit down and discuss in a cooperative way policy issues of mutual concern. To some extent, ministries to this point, in dealing with first nations, had to take the position that they had to operate within the constraints of their current policies. It's very difficult to respond to a particular first nation's desire to have policy change, because when policy changes take place, they will take place usually for more than one area of the province or one particular first nation. We needed, therefore, and first nations requested, a forum in which we could look at policy development and policy change on a cooperative basis with first nations generally. What we've done is negotiate with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and we are in the final stages of negotiations with the summit group, to establish two policy forums at which we can sit down on a regular basis at a political level, and follow up with working groups, to examine policy issues that are of mutual concern.
In addition, within existing policy, many of the initiatives the government has taken, through the creation of advisory bodies, through direct participation models and through the involvement of first nations citizens on the councils that are established by government, facilitate greater participation by first nations in implementation and other issues relating to the carrying out of policy.
V. Anderson: Speaking from the community level, it's an awareness of how this policy is developing that seems to me to be important, from both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal point of view. As we travelled with the First Citizens' Fund through many of their aboriginal communities, we found very little awareness among them -- as we find very little awareness among the people of most communities -- about the kinds of processes that are going on at the government level. I'm concerned about how we get these people involved as the processes go on. That's partly what I'm raising from this particular point of view.
Perhaps we could move on. If we mov directly into the next section under that -- the public consultation.... In a sense, we're talking about public consultation at this point, both in the formal and informal sense of public consultation. We have those three areas of treaty mandates, aboriginal policy and public consultation, to understand how they operate individually and also the relationships among them.
Hon. A. Petter: The function of the public consultation division is a reflection of our desire to ensure that as we make policy changes, they are not made without the involvement of communities and third-party interests. For example, the public consultation director has been intimately involved in the revisions that are being made to the third-party advisory process. In terms of the interrelationship, this reflects that changes in policy, particularly in an area which does have some sensitivities, cannot be made in isolation from the people who will be influenced by that policy -- in particular, non-aboriginal peoples who may see their interests as adversely affected unless they are included and unless their voices are heard. This particular division has had a major say and a major role to play in developing third-party consultation processes around treaty negotiations. But beyond that, we are aware that other policy changes also necessitate third-party consultation. Where other major policy initiatives are undertaken, the public consultation division will be intimately involved in ensuring that those stakeholders who may have an interest in that policy are included in the developmental stages. If the
[ Page 7050 ]
policy is going to require further consultation down the road, they will be involved in that stage as well.
[11:30]
V. Anderson: When the public consultation group is involved, will they be putting out policy statements to the public? Will they be asking for general public input? What is the process of the public consultation division in relating to the public itself?
Hon. A. Petter: There are a variety of processes that can be used to consult with communities in a variety of different contexts. There was a fair bit of controversy last year, for example, in the case of the Fountain Valley joint stewardship arrangement. That arrangement, in fact, was negotiated initially by the previous government and completed by us. There was a good deal of concern around that. To address that concern, we have put into place -- and I wish we had done it earlier, frankly -- a public consultation strategy to make sure that the municipal council and local citizens do have an opportunity to participate. It involves consultations with the mayor and council. It involves the negotiators themselves making sure that information is shared at appropriate times in the stages of development of that joint stewardship initiative. I'd be happy to expand on that or add further to it in the afternoon.
But I must now, given the hour, hon. Chair, move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 11:33 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]