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)
MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 3
[ Page 7113 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It is a great honour to introduce to the Legislature His Excellency Levko Lukianenko and Mrs. Nadia Lukianenko, who represent the new country of Ukraine, which for the second time in its history has achieved independence. We are indeed honoured that His Excellency is here, as someone who fought for freedom and paid a very heavy penalty by serving 15 years in jail the first time he was imprisoned by the Soviets and another ten years for once again keeping his commitment and the courage of his ideals for a free Ukraine. Indeed, we are honoured to have him and Mrs. Lukianenko here with us, as well as Mr. John Stashuk and Mrs. Stashuk, the president of the provincial council of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.
J. Weisgerber: I would ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating a former caucus colleague and member of this House on her election as Canada's and British Columbia's first woman Prime Minister. Please join me in giving Kim a round of congratulations.
D. Jarvis: I'd like the House to meet Mr. and Mrs. Peak, who have travelled up from Carmel, California, in search of sunshine and who are here in B.C. as guests of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Would members please make them welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: In the gallery today are my father, Jim Cull, and Barbara Jeffries, a teacher from Torquay Elementary School, which is in my riding. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce today in the gallery 37 students from Vancouver Christian School in my constituency, who are with their teacher, Ms. Dyck. I'd ask all members to make them welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: As one of those whose riding overlaps that of the soon-to-be Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell, I'd also like to extend congratulations to Kim Campbell and wish her a very productive, if not an overly long, tenure in her job. We'll leave that to the people of Canada to decide, but I look forward to working with her while she's Prime Minister.
Hon. Speaker, I'd also like to introduce two Floridians who are with us today in the public gallery. Carol Koester is the manager and Ellen Bennett is a travel agent at Travel Specialties in Altamonte Springs, Florida. They have been in B.C. inspecting the Alaska cruise industry, and have been very impressed by the hospitality, both in Vancouver and Victoria. I'd like to ask hon. members to join me in making them welcome here today.
D. Schreck: I have the privilege of making two introductions on behalf of the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who is not able to be with us at this time. Visiting in the precincts this afternoon are approximately 29 grade 7 students from David Oppenheimer Elementary School. I bid the House join me in making them welcome.
The member for Vancouver-Fraserview has also asked me to make welcome on his behalf some visitors from the People's Republic of China. Vice-Mayor Zhang of the city of Zhengzhou, which is the capital of Henan Province, is heading a delegation visiting several Crown corporations. Will the House please join me in bidding these visitors welcome.
L. Reid: I ask the House to please join me in welcoming Linda Volidka to the galleries today.
D. Streifel: Touring in the precincts today are 33 grade 7 students from Christine Morrison Elementary School in Mission. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. R. MacLeod, and other escorts. I rise to introduce as well, Christine Morrison, after whom the school is named. She's a legend in Mission, a lifetime educator and the reason that Mission is what it is today. Hon. colleagues, when these students are in the galleries a little later this afternoon, take a note: the future of Mission-Kent is here.
MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND VALIDATING (No. 2) AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill contains three additions to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act which were requested by their respective local governments. One affects land use decision-making in all regional districts in the Islands Trust. It will preserve, on specified grounds, the validity of their official community plans and zoning bylaws, which are these governments' principal tools in regulating land use and zoning.
Another part of this legislation is important to preserve jobs in the community of Trail in that it will clear the way for local government to implement an economic plan developed for the Trail area by the Job Protection Commission. Specifically, the legislation provides authority to the city of Trail and the Regional District of Kootenay-Boundary to become partners for the next ten years in an economic plan that will safeguard the economic future of the community of Trail. At the same time, it validates the regional district's variable tax rate plan for 1993 and future years.
A third provision of this legislation is important to the people of the district of Vanderhoof and to the
[ Page 7114 ]
economic future of this northern community. This legislation will permit the district to enter into an agreement with Transport Canada -- the federal government -- to transfer ownership of the local airport to the district, giving local people control over this vital transportation facility.
I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 43 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Elections Reform Act, 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Today I am presenting a legislative package designed to make local government elections in this province more open, fair and accessible. Bill 35, the Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, modernizes an antiquated local election process which was basically designed in the nineteenth century and hasn't really been looked at, in any fashion, since 1957.
[2:15]
Our government believes in the necessity of bringing local elections legislation into the 1990s so that the operation of local elections meets the standards and expectations of all British Columbians. Bill 35 is the result of exhaustive and extensive consultation, through an overhaul of local government elections legislation. As I've said, it's the product of a process of major consultation with local government and concerned citizens. Many of the changes in this legislation were requested by local government.
These amendments require the disclosure of campaign expenses and contributions and require tougher penalties to discourage abuse of the election process. The legislation also increases access by lowering the age to 18, makes voting places more accessible to people with disabilities, provides local government with the option of using mail ballots and makes it mandatory for local governments to offer at least two days of advanced voting. It creates a fairer and far more open voting system by eliminating the vote for corporations, tenants and occupations, but it ensures that non-resident property owners have the vote, through one vote per property.
The Speaker: I regret, minister, that your time has expired.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, we will have lots of opportunity to debate this major piece of legislation.
Bill 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
TEACHING PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. A. Hagen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. A. Hagen: The amendments to the Teaching Profession Act have been recommended by the College of Teachers of B.C. These miscellaneous amendments make changes to the dates for the election of members to the council of the college, clarify procedures for the election of the chair, provide greater flexibility in the appointment of council committees and areas of overlap between the roles of the British Columbia Teachers' Federation and the college and make a number of housekeeping amendments to clarify aspects of the legislation.
Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Emergency Program Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This bill repeals the current Emergency Program Act and replaces it with an entirely new act. The existing act is out of date. Many of its provisions relate to government's emergency planning and preparedness requirements during the Cold War era following World War II. The proposed act has been developed in consultation with emergency preparedness representatives from local government and provincial government emergency response agencies. This bill will improve public safety by establishing a clear legislative basis for effective preparedness and response to emergencies and disasters.
Bill 38 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
BUDGET INFORMATION LEAFLET
F. Gingell: My question today is to the Minister of Finance. Would he be good enough to advise this House of the total cost -- mailing, printing, etc. -- for the circular regarding this year's budget that was mailed to all B.C. taxpayers?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't have the details with me. I'm delighted to provide this to the members. I've provided it already for members of the press gallery. It was important, obviously, that the public know that 28 percent of British Columbians received a tax cut. It was important that they know that 95 percent of British Columbians received an increase in the homeowner
[ Page 7115 ]
grant. It was important that they know that the deficit has been reduced dramatically -- some 40 percent -- over the last couple of years. That was the reason for the mailing.
One last point. The cost of the mailing per household was less than the cost of Mayor Campbell's mailing to all households in the GVRD. I'm sure the member opposite is familiar with Mayor Campbell and his campaign.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.
F. Gingell: I appreciate that it uses up my supplementals, but could the minister please tell us how much it cost?
Hon. G. Clark: I would certainly be delighted to give a detailed breakdown. The last time I looked, I think it cost about 33 cents to mail a letter when you do it in bulk. There was no special deal by Canada Post for the government. We took advantage of their good services. The cost of the leaflet, as I said earlier, was significantly less than the cost of the GVRD mailing to regional districts. The magnitude of the cost was about $300,000, I believe.
The Speaker: A final supplemental.
F. Gingell: I won't ask him that question again, because the cost keeps coming down; that's quite a bit less than he told the press gallery. I would be interested to know why he believes that his circular is fair, balanced comment and yet he accuses Mayor Campbell's circular of being cheap political propaganda that the people of B.C. do not accept. Why do you believe that?
The Speaker: I would remind the Minister of Finance that only the first part comes within the jurisdictional responsibility.
Hon. G. Clark: There were two circulars from the person you support for leader of your party. One was a leaflet prepared for the GVRD that went to every homeowner, which was, of course, significantly more expensive than the leaflet that the government prepared. The circular to which you're referring is a property tax notice that has very misleading information, which indicates that a one-year program that was eliminated last year is somehow carried forward into this year's budget. It's misleading in the sense that this year most residents of British Columbia received an increase in the homeowner grant. You wouldn't know that, obviously, from the information that's put out by the city of Vancouver.
Once again, it's important that we get the message straight: we have the lowest rate of government spending since 1987, the deficit has come down significantly, there are tax breaks for 28 percent of British Columbians and there is an increase in the homeowner grant. That's the purpose for the mailing.
PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE COSTS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The NDP in Ontario have finally realized that they have an obligation to their taxpayers to reduce public sector wage costs. If Bob Rae can cut $2 billion from his budget, surely this Premier can find a quarter of that amount in the British Columbia budget. Will the Premier follow the lead of other governments -- every other government in this country -- and take some real action to reduce public sector wage costs?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can answer a very affirmative yes; that's what this government has done over the last two budgets. The previous government, of which this Leader of the Third Party was a member, was giving 7 percent increases. We reduced those to 2 percent and less. Their spending was increasing at a totally unsustainable 12 to 13 percent every year. We have reduced that to below inflation: a 5.7 percent rate of growth, which is less than half the rate at which the Social Credit government was spending. Yes, we are making progress. We have reduced the deficit 35 percent in the last two years.
J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the Premier. While every other government in this country is slashing public sector wage costs, in two budgets this government has increased the cost of public sector wages and benefits in British Columbia by 23 percent. While every other government is reducing costs, this government has increased public sector wages by 23 percent.
Will the Premier sit down with his friends in organized labour -- with John Shields, Ray Worley and Ken Georgetti -- and work out some arrangement to reduce public sector wage costs in British Columbia.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can see that the Leader of the Third Party is using the same kind of public descriptions that he used when he was with the Social Credit government, when he told us that we had a $400 million deficit and a $800 million budget stabilization fund -- I think it was called. Then, just a few weeks after the last provincial election, we discovered the true state of the books -- not the silly money that the Social Credit government was playing with, but the true state of the books -- which was a $2.4 billion deficit. How he can stand up and talk about telling the people of British Columbia what's truthful about the books is a bit much to take.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
J. Weisgerber: Other governments in this country have instituted three-year wage freezes. Will the government at least consider, or reconsider, our call for a two-year wage freeze on public sector wages in this province? Will the Premier live up to his responsibility to taxpayers instead of to the union movement and institute a two-year wage freeze on pubic sector wages and benefits?
[ Page 7116 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: We get two different stories from the Leader of the Third Party. The first story is, yes, we established Bills 19 and 20, which allowed teachers, for example, to go to free collective bargaining, and now we want to take it away. Yes, we established the budgets that allowed teachers to receive a 32 percent increase over the last five years that they were in government, increasing the taxpayers' costs dramatically.
So to now hear the pious Leader of the Third Party talk about freezes, about cuts, about slashes, after they brought in those huge increases in budgets, is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
ARTISTS AND WORKING LIFE PROGRAM
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. Can the minister explain to the House why her ministry is showing a bias toward unions by agreeing to fund the artistic limitations inherent in the artists and working life grants program?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Members, the question was listened to in relative silence, and I think that we need to listen to the answers with the same degree of courtesy.
Hon. D. Marzari: I'd be pleased to answer the question, hon. Speaker, but the question was incoherent. Would the hon. member please rephrase the question in a manner which is understandable?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Supplemental, hon. member.
[2:30]
W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can confirm -- and I'll speak slowly -- that in order to get a grant under the artists and working life program, an artist has to paint or write something about workers of various cultures, women workers, regional workers or the unemployed. My question is: how can the minister justify a program in which you have to have union backing in order to apply for grants from her ministry?
Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, I am proud to answer that question, now that it has become clear. The ministry has established a $50,000 cost-shared program with the labour movement in this province to encourage and assist the artists, who are workers, to bring forward and express their ideas. We have developed a joint selection system which works in conjunction with the B.C. Arts Board. Basically, it's a small program that aspires to service artists and performers who reflect the workers of this province.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
W. Hurd: The special committee to which the minister referred is comprised of two members of the B.C. Federation of Labour and one from her ministry. Can the minister explain why she is in the business of funding politically correct artistic endeavours in this province when regular artists and people who have total freedom of expression are having their funds reduced? Do we have a politically correct artistic program in this province?
Hon. D. Marzari: Regular artists in this province are in fact workers in this province, and I will state that unequivocally. Regular artists in this province very often work for less than minimum wage and hold down three or four part-time jobs in order to subsidize the rest of the community for the art they produce. There has been no cutback in the arts and culture budget this year. Although the federal government has been cutting back at the rate of 15 percent a year over the last five years, artists in this province have received a status quo budget for the last two years. It's not good enough, but it has given artists and the Arts Board the stability that they need, as well as the stability the cultural services branch needs to deliver that money and to assure the artistic community in this province that there are no cutbacks for the arts in B.C.
SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can this minister confirm a media report, attributed to the B.C. Nurses' Union, that she is about to announce a task force to review the Shaughnessy closure?
Hon. E. Cull: No.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: It seems to be that the B.C. Nurses' Union is under that impression. My supplementary is to the minister again. Has this minister promised a moratorium on layoffs if, indeed, the Shaughnessy question goes forward?
Hon. E. Cull: The Shaughnessy closure is going forward, and the promise made to all workers at Shaughnessy is part of the labour accord, which Mr. Ready has been involved in and concludes today.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: It seems to me that consultation is still a question and that that task force was asked for by Vancouver City Council on April 27. Is this minister now prepared to consult directly with the people of British Columbia?
Hon. E. Cull: I'm quite prepared to consult.
GAMING REVIEW
L. Hanson: My question today is to the Attorney General. It has been some six months now since the
[ Page 7117 ]
report on gaming was due to be presented to cabinet. Will the minister agree to table that report today, or has cabinet decided to deep-six that particular report?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no to both questions.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Hanson: That certainly hastens things up.
Is it still the position of cabinet that this government is, and must remain, responsible for the regulation of gambling activities within this jurisdiction? Can the Attorney General confirm that the jurisdiction of the province includes all territory and people within the geographic boundaries of British Columbia as we know it?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's at least the second time the member has asked me that question this session. The answer is still the same.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all hon. members that, by agreement, Committee A will convene at around 2:50 p.m. The minister has been delayed due to weather problems but we will, in any event, have the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in the Douglas Fir Room, commencing at about 2:50 p.m.
Hon. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on Bill 32.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
(continued)
L. Fox: Given that I had spoken at some length Thursday morning, hon. Speaker, could you perhaps indicate the amount of time that I have left to speak?
The Speaker: I will check on that, hon. member, and advise you as soon as possible. I've just been advised that the hon. member has 18 minutes left.
L. Fox: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
When debate adjourned last Thursday morning I was canvassing the concerns about this bill expressed by British Columbians as a whole and particularly by industry and the business community. As I said then, Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act, will discourage investment in B.C. It will extend the time frame for the process, and it will defray costs from the provincial government onto the proponent of a particular initiative. The other morning I was pointing out what has happened because of policies and legislation such as this and a similar bill last year -- in fact, it was exactly the same number last year, Bill 32. They have caused the mining exploration companies and the mining community to spend their money elsewhere, other than in B.C. It's a real shame, because it isn't only that amount, which is quite substantial. In 1990-91 the amount spent in British Columbia was in excess of $150 million.
It's not only the fact that that money will go out of the province. We can look at losing that money not only for the current year but also for successive years, because it takes a considerable amount of work and time in order to develop a mining property. Beyond that, they also pull services out of British Columbia. We will lose business opportunities, opportunities for the service industry and opportunities to diversify the economies of single-resource communities.
This government doesn't seem to understand that there is life beyond hope and that their economic policies are dramatically affecting that. In fact, this government does not seem to understand that three out of every eight jobs in Vancouver are supported by the lumber industry. We keep seeing legislation come forward in this House that is devastating the resource industry throughout the province. When we look at the mining companies, most of their corporate offices are in Vancouver. They contribute a lot to the economy of the lower mainland, as well as to the economy of the rural parts of British Columbia. When we examine what's happening in terms of job creation, we see that that is not occurring in the rural parts of the province. It's occurring in the lower mainland, in the Okanagan because of growth and here in the government because the government has been increasing the number of employees.
We need a process that provides a partnership arrangement between industry and government to collectively look at how we can utilize our resources in the best interests of all British Columbians, not just of small interest groups. We have to have a balanced approach to the environment and the economy. This bill is anything but a balanced approach; it's so loose that the government can do whatever it wishes with it. If a proponent wanting to invest in British Columbia were to look at this bill, it's unfortunate that they would not find out exactly what the laws of the land are. The bill has been purposefully written in an open-ended manner so that the government can deal with day-to-day issues through regulations. What those regulations reflect might depend on which pressure group comes here on which day.
I -- along with, I'm sure, the rest of my caucus -- will be voting against Bill 32, because we believe it will do a great disservice to the province. It will do absolutely nothing toward creating jobs. The number one issue for the constituents I talk to around this province is job creation. I believe that this minister and cabinet forgot about that when they drafted Bill 32.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today to speak against Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act. This bill clearly has the potential of being a job-killer in the province. It will create more regulatory hurdles, without any evidence that environmental protection will benefit or that it will be enhanced in any way. This is an enabling piece of legislation that sets up a vague structure designed to look at environmental assessment in the province. I believe that it represents a duplication of the kind of assessments that are currently ongoing in other line ministries.
[ Page 7118 ]
I would like to echo the comments of others in the opposition benches about the difficulties faced by resource-based industries and other companies in this province when it comes to bringing projects on stream which have some environmental impact. Nothing in this bill would lead the opposition to conclude that the process by which projects can be brought forward will in any way be streamlined or enhanced by this legislation. Because of its vagueness and because it is a vacuum into which the minister has the ability to plug a number of committees and processes, there is absolutely no security in this kind of bill that projects in this province will be able to proceed in an ongoing and timely manner.
As we deal with some of these megaprojects, large sums of money are required to be spent before they ever get off the drawing board -- money required for pre-planning, for environmental assessment and for other issues and initiatives that may be demanded from government. We are setting up a system of environmental assessment in this province which will act as a bulwark rather than a streamlining of this important process.
[2:45]
The opposition is very concerned about the potential economic impact of this bill. We are very concerned about what it means to resource-based communities in this province who have to attract investment capital in order to push projects forward and secure employment. As a result of this type of legislation, they will not see an orderly and timely review of projects which need environmental approval.
[R. Chisholm in the chair.]
Some of the highlights are disturbing in the extreme. As we look through this legislation, we will welcome the opportunity to question the minister at length in committee about exactly what some of these clauses will portend for people and companies in the major resource sectors in this province. The question we will be asking is: will this bill make it more likely for companies to invest in this province? Will it make it more likely that they will want to put the required money up front, without a firm time frame?
Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: I'm finding the member's comments extremely important to the people of British Columbia -- and I hated to interrupt him -- yet I find we do not have a quorum.
Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately that is not a point of order. There is a quorum when you count -- including myself. Carry on, hon. member.
W. Hurd: Thank you, hon. Speaker; it's good to see a neutral voice in the chair for a change.
As we review this legislation and look at some of the new initiatives in this Environmental Assessment Act, the executive director of the Environmental Assessment Board has the potential to be one of the most powerful order-in-council appointments in the province -- perhaps even more powerful than the Crown corporations secretariat, who knows -- when it comes to resource-based industries and resource-based projects in this province. Under the new act there will be limited grounds for appeal, and there are no grounds for any compensation to be dealt with under this assessment legislation.
As we deal with these types of applications going into a void -- with no end in sight as to how they are to be dealt with -- we really begin to appreciate that companies will simply not be induced to put up the kind of money that will be required without that kind of security or due process that would normally be called for under the existing legislation, which deals with line ministries such as Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and other environmental assessment legislation. We know, too, that the applicant could well be responsible for any costs incurred by the Environmental Assessment Board, by other participants in the review or for fees of consultants hired by the environmental assessment board. As these applications wend their way through this process, it could end up costing a great deal more money.
It's almost as if this bill is an overreaction and overcorrection to the Kemano completion project, in which it was argued that a proper environmental assessment was not done. This may well be true, but the point that this legislation can't address is that it won't necessarily guarantee that we won't be seeing environmental assessment projects done by the federal government in addition to what's being proposed under this legislation. As well, it's interesting to note that the project committee established under this act does not clarify either its function or method of recommendation to the executive director, yet it has one of the most powerful positions within the Environmental Assessment Act.
The opposition is concerned that this bill is another in a series of NDP blank-cheque bills. It is vague on specifics and direction, and it contains clauses of enabling legislation which are difficult, or almost impossible, for the opposition or the public to predict exactly what type of structure will be slotted into the various clauses in this bill.
We see a pattern of a consultative process developing in this province which, one assumes, is set up as an adjunct, rather than as a central core, to the type of legislation coming forward. The opposition is well aware that the hon. member for Nanaimo, who is the parliamentary secretary to the Ministry of Environment, toured the province during the last fiscal year to make recommendations on bringing about some changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. We wonder what he could have heard during his trip and what is finally reflected in this legislation. We wonder sometimes whether people who were consulted and gave their ideas during the public hearing process are not truly disappointed when they fail to see any reflection of their submissions in what finally showed up on the order paper as Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act.
[ Page 7119 ]
This bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation we're going to deal with in this session. It's a bill that has tremendous downside potential for an economy which is exceedingly fragile as we get out of the lower mainland. We have an economy based in resource-dependent communities that is struggling to maintain existing enterprises and, in some cases, is desperately looking for investment capital with which to expand regional economies. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that would induce anyone to have the confidence to invest in regional economies and resource-dependent communities and projects which are going to require environmental assessment.
The opposition believes that this bill is another example of a bill that contains a blank cheque, a void into which the government can slot virtually anything it wants into the various provisions. We'll be speaking against it in second reading and addressing significant concerns when we get into committee. It's a bill that British Columbians should have an opportunity to read. The opposition is already receiving letters of concern from business associations and groups that have had a chance to look at the general thrust of the legislation. They are trying to weigh what it will mean in terms of the exhaustive environmental assessment process that they already have to go through in this province. The assumption being made by government is that we don't have an environmental assessment process that works. In fact, a great many projects in this province have been subjected to exhaustive review already, and this is another void -- another vague type of bureaucracy which will be set up to duplicate ongoing environmental assessment initiatives.
The opposition speaks against this bill in second reading. It's a bill that we'll be looking at closely in committee, and one that I think every British Columbian, particularly those who live outside the lower mainland in communities that require an orderly assembly of capital and an orderly process of major project review, should have the opportunity to read and assess. I hope the government will give serious consideration to inviting that kind of secondary input before the bill passes in this assembly.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I urge the government to rethink its approach to this bill. Once again I urge them to consider a wider array of public consultation. If they listened to the people on this particular bill and were prepared to accept some of the concerns that are now starting to emerge, I believe they would rethink the wide-open and blank-cheque nature of this legislation.
F. Garden: It's with pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of the bill before us. I'm really surprised to hear the opposition spokesperson for Surrey-White Rock speak against the bill, in that during the election campaign the Liberal opposition committed to the enacting of legislation to empower people in the decision-making process through the creation of an environmental review agency. This agency will hear public appeals and be responsible for conducting open public hearings, and we will publish detailed accounts of presentations and the reasons for all final decisions. We now have before us legislation that takes these things into consideration, and again we find the opposition speaking out of the other side of their mouths opposing it.
This legislation is long overdue. The Liberal opposition would have us believe that the bill was hurriedly put together. This is not the case. The member for Nanaimo did extensive consultation throughout the province and heard the views of concerned stakeholders who would have input into the legislation. For far too long, developers of energy projects and mining in this province have run up against an amazing wall of time-consuming bureaucracy, with the result that in many cases projects are dropped. There's duplication between federal and provincial levels, and this legislation allows the province to sit down with the federal government and work out ways to eliminate this duplication.
As I stated previously, present developers have to get through -- or try to get through -- a mountain of bureaucratic nightmares that delay projects interminably. We had a mine approval certificate given last year in my riding which took over two years just to get through the certificate approval process. That mine still has not gotten off the ground. How long do you expect investors to stay around waiting for these processes to go through? It's high time that these bureaucracies were brought into the sphere of one decision-making process. I applaud the author of this bill for putting it before this House today.
I come from a community where mining is very important to our economic well-being. I ran into a situation where one of my constituents got so wrapped up in paperwork between the federal and provincial governments that he ended up in court. He was doing what he thought was the right thing by the provincial legislation, and then the federal people came along and said: "No, you can't do that." The federal ministry finally charged this individual, even though he thought he was going by the instructions of the provincial law, and he ended up in court. Fortunately for him, because fish can't fly uphill, he won his case, but it was just a perfect example of the bureaucratic nightmare that is preventing mining and energy development in this province. If this kind of legislation had been in the regulations or legislation at the time that the Kemano project was first conceived, we wouldn't have gotten into the mess that we're in with that Kemano project. But again, it was because of the need for this kind of legislation that we did get into that mess, and now we're trying to clean up the mess that the former government and the federal government made over Kemano.
Once again, I'd like to say that I applaud this. I cannot understand why the Liberal opposition is against it. It goes along the lines of what they were looking for, or what they were telling the people they were looking for. Now that we've got it before us, they seem to be changing their minds. In my estimation, this is long overdue. Yes, there's some concern about the regulations, but there is time for a consultation process
[ Page 7120 ]
to take place. This bill has to go through several stages yet before it's law. We're prepared to listen to what the industry and investment people have to say. We have that assurance from the minister. This is progressive legislation, long overdue, and at least it lets communities know. What do you do when you're in a community and you wait three years to see whether a mine or something is going to go through in your area? Do you hang on, on the chance that you might get work there, or do you wait until this lengthy process goes through? You might get unemployment insurance in the meantime, if you're lucky, but the present process is not conducive to investment in any energy proposal in this province. It leaves the investors hanging out; it leaves workers hanging out; it leaves whole communities hanging out for a longer period of time than they should.
[3:00]
Once again, I'm proud to stand up here and support this good legislation, and if the Liberal opposition were true to their own principles, they'd be standing up and supporting this, because this is the kind of stuff they said they would do.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock is rising on what matter?
W. Hurd: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce 22 grade 7 French immersion students from White Rock Elementary School in my riding, and their teacher Miss Julianne Huang. They are touring the precinct today. Would the assembly please make them welcome.
D. Mitchell: I am pleased to participate in this debate today and to be able to say that I agree with many of the points made by the member for Cariboo North. He's absolutely right that we need an environmental assessment act in this province. He's absolutely correct that we need to streamline the process of approval of major projects in our province in terms of the environmental regulations and red tape that exist now -- under the government that he's a member of. He's absolutely right that we need to combine all of the various governmental levels of approval: the federal, provincial and regional levels. He's right that there is a need to streamline the process. The problem is that with Bill 32, once you turn past the title page and start looking at the contents, it becomes readily apparent that Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act, is not the way to do it.
I am surprised and amazed that the Minister of Environment was able to get this bill through cabinet, because the minister's colleagues in cabinet obviously haven't read this bill. If they had, they would realize that we now have a czar of the environment, not a Minister of Environment, who will now be the most powerful minister in government. Perhaps that's the way it should be; perhaps the Minister of Environment should be the most powerful minister in government, because after all, as British Columbians, we all care for the environment. We all want to see a clean, healthy environment in British Columbia. But the arbitrary and vague powers that are given to the minister under this act really don't bode well for a healthy democracy, because the decision-making that will be made under this government with this bill, once it has been passed into law as an act, provides room for abuse -- and, yes, political abuse as well.
This legislation has not been well thought through, and I wonder whether or not the minister has hoodwinked his colleagues in cabinet into giving him the most extraordinary powers in the provincial government. Indeed, no project of any consequence will be able to proceed in British Columbia without the Minister of Environment giving thumbs up. Even though this bill sets up a labyrinthine, three-stage process of approval, a huge bureaucracy and massive red tape, the minister still has the discretionary ability to put thumbs up or thumbs down on any project. One wonders whether the process really means anything, because political control is still vested in the office of this minister. He will still have the ultimate power.
One wonders why we are debating this lengthy bill, which goes on for more than 40 pages. This bill is detailed in what it proposes, but it doesn't define any of the terminology it uses. Earlier in this debate, the Leader of the Third Party said it was deliberately vague, and I must agree. We're being asked to pass a bill that basically says the minister can do whatever he wants. The government says they will pass regulations later on to fill in the details.
How can we, as responsible legislators, pass a bill like this? This is a major problem when any government asks its Legislature to approve delegated legislation, saying: "Give us these powers, and cabinet will fill in the blanks later through orders-in-council." Delegated legislation is an increasing problem in any modern government, and this bill is testimony to those problems. We as legislators are being asked to approve something the consequences of which we really can't understand. The minister is simply given broad discretion to do what he wishes under this bill, and that's wrong.
The major objections to this bill can be categorized very simply. First of all, the costs of approval for any major project in this province are going to be borne by the proponent of that project. That means that if a business comes forward wanting to develop a part of the province or initiate any conceivable project -- upgrade an existing facility, build a major housing subdivision or build a new recreational facility -- the cost of going through all the various hoops proposed by this bill are to be borne by the proposer of the project. Yet it's impossible to say how many thousands or perhaps millions of dollars might be entailed in those costs. That's asking quite a bit from any business or developer. They can apply for approval, but no one knows whether that approval is going to be given. We know one thing for sure: the costs are going to be borne by the proposer, no matter what those costs will be. That's a bit much to ask of any proponent. It's going to significantly increase the costs of doing business in
[ Page 7121 ]
British Columbia, and I think that's bad, because it will scare away investment. The first major flaw in Bill 32 are the costs.
The second major problem that I foresee in this bill is that there aren't any time lines. Business needs to be able to plan. In order to decide to spend capital that will create jobs and help build a healthy economy in this province, one needs to know if the project is going to be approved within a certain time frame. This bill is deliberately vague. It offers no assurance whatsoever as to the time that will be required to pass through the various stages of environmental approval. This leads to greater uncertainty, an uncertainty that I fear will again have the effect of scaring away business. Businesses will be unable to plan, because they will have no way of foretelling whether a project will take one, two or three years to get the approvals necessary to proceed.
Earlier in the debate, the member for Cariboo North stated that the Kemano project was being unnecessarily delayed, and he's absolutely right. This government has delayed it by changing the ground rules ever since it came into office. This bill isn't going to tighten that up. If anything, this bill gives any government licence to delay indefinitely any major project that comes forward. Rather than no time lines, business needs assurance of an answer within a reasonable time frame.
I'll give you an example. It's not to say that we should be following it, but in another jurisdiction in our hemisphere, in the country of Chile, when a mining proponent comes forward wanting to develop a new mine, the government there has set up guidelines stating that within 90 days they will receive an answer, yes or no, as to whether or not they will be able to proceed. That's tremendously efficient. I wonder if we could replicate that here. I don't know. Maybe 90 days is unrealistic, but at least they have a guideline. We need some kind of guideline here so that if a proponent comes forward and wants to invest money, create jobs and help develop our province, they will be told with some certainty, within a certain time frame, that they will get a yes or no answer -- thumbs up or thumbs down.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
We don't have that here, and as a result we can see the consequence. The mining industry in British Columbia is moving to Chile, to different parts of the world, because there is no certainty here and there is greater certainty that there will be a return on investment elsewhere. We could fix that by putting into Bill 32 some specific time frames for approval. But they aren't here. The suggestion is that they could go on indefinitely, and that, I fear, will scare investment away even further.
The third major problem that I see in this bill is that there aren't any specific terms of reference. Bill 32 will apply to just about any project in this province. It's very broad. It includes potentially anything -- anything goes. The projects that are defined in this project are defined very vaguely. In the backgrounder put out by the minister's office, the proposed reviewable projects that will be subject to this new act of the Legislature, if it is passed, will include just about any project that goes forward in British Columbia. The categories listed are industrial -- and what industrial means could be just about anything -- mining, energy, water containment and diversion, municipal and regional, agricultural, transportation, tourism and recreation. I think that within those categories we could find just about any project proceeding in this province that one could imagine.
Virtually everything is going to be subject to the approval mechanisms enshrined in law by this proposed bill. That worries me, because these terms of reference are so broad that it really suggests there isn't going to be anything taking place that creates a job, produces wealth or helps to build the economy of our province without the Minister of Environment giving explicit approval to it under guidelines that are very broad -- under time lines that don't exist.
We know one thing for sure, and only one thing: the costs of the approval and the costs of the various boards and the bureaucrats' time are going to be borne by the proposer of the project. What incentive is there to invest in British Columbia under these kinds of guidelines?
That leads to my final major concern with this bill, and that is the ministerial discretion. It's too broad. Under Bill 32, this minister is given such broad, sweeping and arbitrary powers that one really wonders how any responsible legislator can vote in favour of a bill like this. The minister is given such broad powers that the massive bureaucratic, technical review process enshrined in three different stages in this bill might be for naught, because the minister can receive the report of the various boards and decide whether he wants to accept them or not.
So the power still rests with this minister and his office. This minister undoubtedly will become the most important minister in the executive council of British Columbia with this bill. That may or may not be a bad thing, but I think we need to recognize it before we pass this bill into law. The Minister of Environment really will be running the province. No economic project, no investment will proceed in this province without the Minister of Environment giving his explicit approval. There are no real guidelines for why he should accept or reject any of the various approval mechanisms put forward in this bill, and so it seems rather arbitrary.
Something else is lacking in this bill. Where is the economic assessment of any project enshrined in this bill? There is a bias in this legislation that has to be referred to, and the bias is that business is bad, developers are bad, that they are evil people and have to be checked and controlled. They have to be regulated. There is an assumption inherent in the language of this legislation that development is bad and that it must be controlled or, at the very least, delayed indefinitely, and that the minister must be able to control that process. There's an ingrained assumption that business is bad, but there's no recognition of where the wealth in our province is created. There's no shred of evidence in this legislation that this government understands how business in this province operates or how wealth is created.
[ Page 7122 ]
Instead of this kind of legislation, what we would like to see is legislation that recognizes where wealth is created in our province and how good-paying, sustainable jobs are created. There should be some recognition of a partnership, where business and government work together to develop the province in a dynamic fashion. Instead we have negative legislation. We have legislation that assumes that business is bad and must be controlled, stopped, checked or, at the very least, delayed. That's what's so wrong with this legislation.
There's another assumption in this legislation that speaks to why this legislation must be opposed. It is a process that forces British Columbians to choose either to have a clean environment or good-paying, sustainable jobs in a new, dynamic, vigorous growing economy. That's a false choice, hon. Speaker. British Columbians should never have to accept that choice. I believe we can have both. We can have both a clean and healthy environment and a strong, vigorous growing economy. There's no reason why British Columbians should have to choose between the two. But we can't have both if we set up a process that is arbitrary, polarized and adversarial, or if we assume that business is bad and set up a process that pits business against the government and the regulatory process. This legislation requires more thought; at the very least it requires serious amendment. It cannot be passed this way.
When speaking earlier in this debate, the member for Nanaimo indicated that he thought this was very important legislation. He said that it would have a great impact on our province. Indeed, the member for Nanaimo is very correct. This legislation will have a great impact upon our province. It may be among the most important legislation brought in by the government during this session.
The government presents it as the culmination of a process that started off with the major project review process guidelines, which were sponsored by the provincial government back in 1991. I'm very familiar with those guidelines because I had to work with them when I was in private industry. They were very difficult to work with; there was lots of uncertainty. No one could tell what the guidelines were. There was a need to strengthen those.
[3:15]
So what did the provincial government do? It brought forward a discussion paper called, "Reforming Environmental Assessment in British Columbia." That was last year. There was a major discussion process and a consultation process as well. Did the government really listen to the concerns of business? The evidence is that they clearly listened to the bureaucrats. They've set up a process that has not streamlined the approvals at the federal and provincial level; in fact, they may have made them more complicated. Have they really listened? What have they done with this bill? This bill has been introduced into the House very recently. Now the government has called for debate, and presumably they want to ram it through the House. They quickly want to pass it into law. That is inappropriate. We're in too much of a hurry with this kind of legislation. This legislation needs to breathe and see the light of day. It should be openly discussed by industry and local communities. The member for Nanaimo is correct: it will have a tremendous impact on B.C., and therefore it should not be rushed through the House. Today in second reading we are debating it in principle. I think that's important. But before we get to the committee stage, we should have more time for consultation and impact. The committee stage on a piece of legislation like this is indeed going to take some time.
When he introduced the bill, and later when he started second reading debate, the Minister of Environment was very brief with his comments -- uncharacteristically so, given the importance of this legislation. I wonder if the Minister of Environment is too modest. Has he deliberately decided not to explain the import of this legislation in detail? Is he too modest in the sense that he's trying to conceal the fact that this legislation will confer upon him the greatest powers by statute that any minister in the executive council of British Columbia will have. I wonder if he's trying to conceal the fact that this legislation will really have a tremendously negative impact on the province. One has to ask why the government would bring in a bill that would scare investment away from British Columbia. Why would the government of this province bring in legislation that is almost designed, through some perverted process of twisted logic, to scare investment from this province? Shame on them for bringing in a bill that is going to have a negative impact not only on British Columbia today but on British Columbians for all time.
We must think of the future and whether we are going to have a mining industry in British Columbia. We have already seen the mining industry virtually scared out of this province with the environmental processes that are being put in place. We want to see a clean, healthy environment, but we also want to see a mining industry. We want to see a healthy, strong, vigorous forest industry. We want to see an energy and petroleum resources industry thriving in this province, and we also want to see new investment -- major projects and minor projects -- proceed. But they're not going to be able to.
Who in British Columbia or outside of our province is going to want to invest their capital in a jurisdiction where an anti-business government has brought forward legislation that has no deadlines or guidelines for approval, that has no guaranteed return on any investment -- because even the process itself is going to be paid for by the proponent -- and that gives the minister sweeping, broad, arbitrary and deliberately vague powers of approval? Under those circumstances, who is going to come forward and help us work in partnership with the public and private sectors, working hand in hand? How is that going to happen under this legislation? I'll tell you how, Mr. Speaker: it's not going to happen, and that's why this legislation must be opposed.
There hasn't been enough consultation. It's going to have a negative effect on investment; it's not well-thought-out legislation. The minister has asked us to wait for the regulations; I think that's an improper use of this Legislature. It's not a wise use of the legislative
[ Page 7123 ]
process to simply bring in a bill and say: "Hey, we'll fill in the blanks later. Don't worry about it." We are worried about it.
The minister is saying: trust us. Well, we don't trust this government anymore, and British Columbians are learning every day why we should not trust this government. We can't trust this government because it brings in legislation that is either not well thought out or perhaps too well thought out. That's the only other alternative: perhaps this legislation is very clever indeed. Perhaps they've thought through the fact that if they actually show us what the details are, if they fill in the blanks in this legislation, it would be so repugnant that not only would it not pass through this Legislature but British Columbians might in fact reject this government today, rather than waiting for the next election -- which, of course, they're doing.
Bill 32 is a bad piece of legislation because of its inherent anti-business bias and because it confers too many arbitrary powers on this minister. It's going to scare investment from this province. I don't think anybody who believes in British Columbia, who believes in the potential future of our province and who wants to see economic development in our province could possibly support such ill-considered legislation.
D. Jarvis: I rise to speak against Bill 32, because I feel that it is a very bad piece of legislation that is being put forward to the people and the businessmen of B.C. It is now obvious that this government does not understand how the business community operates, nor does it in fact even trust it. Neither the business community inside of this province nor the one outside of the province is trusted; that's quite obvious by the way things are going with the introduction of this bill. This government is continuing to create an unbelievably poor atmosphere for the continued growth that is so desperately needed for this province. This government's attitude is not conducive to the creation of resource jobs in this province. All of this follows the fact that they are not creating any wealth, nor do they understand how to create it.
This government lives in a dream world. It needs a wake-up call to get us out of this nightmare they put us in. It's obvious that their ideological actions are deterring companies from investing in this province.
H. Lali: Prove it.
D. Jarvis: The member for Yale-Lillooet asks me to prove it. He just has to look at last week's papers and he will see that the Korean government -- which the Minister of Energy and Mines went over to visit and spent thousands of dollars on her Club Med tour -- has now come back and invested $55 million in the state of Washington, not in British Columbia.
Companies based in British Columbia and those outside of this province are making decisions that B.C. is an unfriendly province to work in -- there are safer and more hospitable climates elsewhere. That is obvious. Last year $1 billion-plus of Canadian money was invested outside of this province, and this year over $2 billion Canadian dollars are being invested outside of this province. Yet this government continues to bring forward legislation such as this Bill 32, which transfers and ties up decisions, which wreaks this socialist bureaucracy on us, causes delays, loss of money and loss of jobs.
Business investors look at the whole picture when deciding where they will be able to create their future. When they see high taxation on profits and pre-profits, and endless interference by the government's bureaucracy, they must wonder whether it's worth the gamble to come to British Columbia. Businesses cannot continually support their balance sheets if they are dealing with a government that is in a delay mode of every process leading up to investing in a mine in this province. When they continually see proposed legislation that erodes their confidence, when taxation and land use claims appear to be....
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would hon. members please keep their comments down during the debate.
D. Jarvis: This government continually boasts of their achievements to encourage investments, both internal and foreign, and gives the appearance that they are prepared to make a change. However, their changes are detrimental to business and detrimental to creating jobs and wealth in this province. Yet they introduce legislation such as this, which is a classic case of government redundancy.
Investors, developers and businessmen ask for very little from government. But they do ask for a fair and honest playing field and a fair and honest government -- one that sets its priorities to govern and encourage businesses without the necessity of an ideology between the lines with an agenda that is not conducive to development in this province.
How does this legislation, for example, sit with a company such as Windy Craggy, the project of Geddes Resources Ltd. up in the Haines triangle? Years ago this mineral site was surveyed and staked, and a few years ago it was started up, as required by B.C. law. They put the mine into the mine development assessment program that was under the Energy and Mines ministry and went through the first stages. It wasn't perfect; they had to rewrite it. They threw it back into the mine development assessment program. It has now been well over three or four years and nothing has happened. The previous government vacillated on the situation, and now this government is vacillating. It has withheld its decision as to what it wants to do. It's changing the rules again. It was placed into a parks review, first of all, and then into CORE. CORE came out with a report six months ago. This government is still vacillating and not making a decision on it.
These companies want to come to British Columbia and work to provide jobs and revenue. All they ask of government is that it follow the law of the land when these companies are starting out and not change the rules midstream, as this government is doing again. The most obvious example is that the government has
[ Page 7124 ]
changed the mine development assessment program for the Haines triangle area. As I said, they threw it into the parks and into CORE. Now it has been taken out of the Mines ministry, which is going to throw it into the Environment ministry -- and on and on we go. When is it going to stop? All these rules are changed midstream, as I said, because of the ideology behind the playing rules. Companies do not want to come to this province if they are faced with environmental lobbyists who change the priorities first.
[3:30]
The companies simply say to let them place this application into the mine development assessment program. If it passes the process, all very well; if it doesn't, so much for that. That's the way the system runs. That's the law, the way business is carried out and the way that governments are supposed to act, but not this government. The rules keep changing -- again and again. When the mine development assessment program was brought forward by the Energy and Mines ministry some years ago, it took six months before an application was processed. Then it went up to a year, then two years. Now we're seeing it take three to four years -- and on and on it goes. As soon as the bureaucracy starts settling in, who knows how long it's going to be. It is extended and extended, the approval times get longer and longer and more bureaucrats are required. This mine development assessment program is growing like Topsy. Last year around this time I went out to the start of one of the mine development assessment hearings, close to the riding of my friend from Chilliwack, in Abbotsford. They were going to investigate the start of a feldspar mine -- perhaps the most benign material you can possibly think of. I arrived there, went up to the top of the mountain and there were 21 bureaucrats, all in their 21 little half-tonne trucks....
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Orange and green, and every colour you can think of.
In any event, that's what's happening. The bureaucracy is growing and growing. We know that under this bill there will be a new development assessment program started that will have such a large bureaucracy it will be hard to believe. And then you say, well, that's not too bad; at least they'll be getting rid of the assessment program and the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. No. Talk to that ministry, and they will say: "No, we have to leave that there, because we will write the final ticket to allow them to mine. But we need all those people here to approve what's going to go on in the new mine development assessment program." So now we have doubled our bureaucracy.
The Windy Craggy mine, as I was mentioning before, has now invested a little more than $50 million in this province trying to get a mine development certificate. With no decision after all these years, I'm wondering whether this government really feels that they are being responsible by not giving them at least some indication that it is prepared to look into the matter of whether it's environmentally proper to mine in that area. Or is this government and the Minister of Environment going to listen to the lobbyists and duck under the situation and stall even longer. That mine is probably the flagship of investment in this province. If it goes down due to the vacillation of the Environment ministry, we will see very little investment in the resource sector of this province.
Bill 32 is now changing all the rules once more. As I said, with the assessment program being taken out of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum, we are going to see more reviews and studies, more staff and more taxes. This bill must be looked at logically, as far as the mining industry goes. It was not too long ago that revenue from the Ministry of Energy and Mines was up around $200 million a year -- tax revenue to support our social programs. Last year under $40 million was brought in. We are now down to six working mines in this province. One will close down in July and one in August, and Westmin mines is out on strike. Where are we going to get our revenue? This year we will be lucky if we get $20 million from the mines. As I said, this government got less than $40 million last year from the mines, but the budget shows that they're going to take in $59 million. Well, no one knows where that's going to come from. It's certainly not going to come from the mining industry. That's what you'd call juggling the books.
We have to learn how to create a positive playing field in order to get investors to come into this province. We need investment money. If we don't have people investing in this province and developing it, we will not have any revenue coming in, nor will we have any jobs for our workers to go to. Is this government going to continue to send out the message -- and they will do if this bill passes -- that the government of British Columbia has not created a friendly environment to work under or invest in?
Under this bill we are also ostensibly going to give cabinet the power to make all the decisions with respect to environmental assessments. Any project can be reviewed at the cabinet's whim. I trust that this will not include vehicles that are presently in operation. For example, do they now think that maybe they could close down the whole Kemano project? If a group of people feel that damage to the environment is occurring, this government, this cabinet, may say: "Yes, let's have another review." They could shut down Kemano. I'm going to the extreme, but ostensibly this bill will provide for that situation.
This bill is vague; and as the member for West Vancouver said, maybe that's their intention. If they came out with the truth, we might be viewing the real horror show that we're going to be presented with when business and developers fail to come into the province. With all the unemployment that's going to be created when they fail to come in, this government will be hungry for tax money to continue the province's social programs, and they'll have to go after British Columbians for more taxes. If the money doesn't come in one way, it's got to come in another.
It upsets me that decisions on mines and energy projects in this province will no longer be left to the
[ Page 7125 ]
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Bill 32 will wield a heavy environmental hammer on every imaginable project in this province. As I said before, it also gives the minister and/or a bureaucrat the power to intervene in any development on any grounds. The grounds are not even spelled out in the piece of legislation before us. The mine development assessment program should be the responsibility of the Mines minister. The Environment minister should not be the one steering this process. This new environmental process should be independent of, and more distant from, the Environment minister. It should be handled by someone who is not biased, such as the Environment minister is. We have to say that he's biased, or else he would not be an advocate of his ministry. This bill gives the Environment minister too much power. In fact, this bill will now affect virtually every ministry in this province. He should actually now be called the minister of everything; I believe he thinks he is anyway.
Personalities aside, I feel that mine development in the Haines triangle, or anywhere in this province, is a necessity. I think we should get on with it, without the delays that are going to occur as a result of this bill. No mineral strategy, which the Minister of Energy and Mines professes to have put forward two or three months ago, can be implemented with this regressive legislation. This legislation will be bad for business.
In any event, I'll close by saying that the future always takes care of itself, fortunately, and there are only 840 days left of this government. There are no time limits on this bill, and it leaves no room for rational comment. This bill is perhaps the worst thing that could happen. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you've been paying attention to me all afternoon, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak against this bill.
H. De Jong: I'm pleased to rise and speak against this bill. A couple of weeks ago we passed a bill with a time limit on it. It was the type of bill that basically the government was not prepared to bring before this House, but it had no choice. We were all in favour of the intent of the bill, of course, which was to get the teachers back to work and the children back in school for educational purposes. Today we have a 45-page bill without any specifics -- 45 pages to set up another bureaucracy, and nothing more. There is nothing in this bill that gives any comfort to the environmentalists or the tree-huggers, or to anyone else in B.C. It simply sets up another bureaucracy.
[3:45]
The effects of this bill are unknown to industry, agriculture and the B.C. public. The minister stated quite emphatically in his news release that he was prepared to welcome comments from all interested parties before the Legislature completes its debate on the bill. There isn't a whole lot that the public can respond to other than the setting up of another bureaucracy to police existing and potential industry and also the agricultural community. The intent of the bill is probably to slow down development, particularly industrial development, in this province, but perhaps also to stop development that already exists.
To give an example of what may happen, the previous speaker talked about a proposed feldspar mine in my riding. This is a clean type of operation; it's about the purest stuff you can get out of the earth. A few years ago a well on one of the sanitary trunk lines in the Matsqui district was vandalized, which caused an overflow into a small creek. The creek had never had any fish in it -- none of any substance, anyway -- but about two hours after the news broke that the well had been tampered with and some materials had flowed into the creek, even though it had already been stopped by that time, there were at least 20 or 25 environmentalist-type people on the edge of the creek seeing whether they could count the fish. I'm quite confident that they didn't count any more fish than there were bureaucrats on the banks of that creek, but the ministry was successful in laying a charge against the regional district. They were successful in the courts in having the municipality pay a fine as a result of an act of vandalism over which they had no control whatsoever. Then we talk about fairness through the courts.
If that's the kind of stuff we're looking at, what may come out of this bill is a lot of regulation that people will have to comply with, and I see the future for British Columbians as being pretty dark. There is not much indication of the size of operations to be included under this assessment.
The member for Nanaimo has gone around the province to get feedback from the people on what they would like to see in terms of environmental assessment, protection and so on. I am not against environment protection. I think we are all concerned about the environment, and we should be. I am sure that most industries are also concerned about the environment in which they want to operate. They wouldn't want to purposely do anything that would be detrimental to the environment.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
H. De Jong: There is very little detail of what is going to be policed by this act -- in fact, there is nothing. A blank cheque is being provided to the people of British Columbia. Unfortunately, it will be the government that will fill in the number. It will be a horrendous cost to British Columbia not only in administration and bureaucracy but also in the effects on the various categories of industries.
We talk about agriculture. I am not sure whether the minister is even aware that every municipality and regional district has its setbacks and zoning bylaws. There are setbacks from local streams, roads and other environmental aspects so that they are properly protected. So why have a further act to police agriculture?
From time to time there is concern about the high levels of nitrogen found in soils. At the same time, I think the minister should also realize that there is more and more pressure put on the agriculture community to produce more from that same acre of land, which
[ Page 7126 ]
requires more fertilization. I am quite confident that there is no farmer so foolish as to over-fertilize any piece of land, because it's a costly procedure to spread fertilizer on land in order to get production. The environmentalists see it from a different side off the coin, I suppose. They feel that the farms could very well go back to the early days, when much of the crops were grown without fertilizer. But in those days they weren't paying $20,000 an acre for the farmland.
For many years, many aspects of the agriculture community have been regulated through the application of codes of practice. In fact, there have been some very good self-policing groups of farmers of certain commodities who have done a tremendous job in setting up codes by which that segment of the industry would have to live. But they were practical codes. They are not the type of codes that I can see coming out of Victoria. Many of these people have never seen a real farm. I can see what's going to come out of Victoria in terms of codes and practices that will be allowable.
The member for Nanaimo apparently went on a trip throughout British Columbia to find out what is really essential to protect the environment, and which size of farms would be allowed. I read again from the material that was provided from the booklet "British Columbia: Handle With Care." It says that dairy operations where the milking herds exceed 700 animals will be subject to the regulations. What type of regulations? It doesn't say. The bill doesn't give any indication of what those regulations may be. It further says that poultry operations of 200,000 layers, 200,000 broilers or 150,000 turkeys would be subject to regulations which are unknown. Beef feedlots involving more than 5,000 cattle would be included in the regulations, but again there are no regulations proposed at this point in time.
I fail to see how a government can be so double-tongued, you might say, as to at one time bring forth a bill which has a life span of only ten months and then it's off the record and off the books, and here they will bring forward a bill of 45 pages of bureaucracy that will have a detrimental effect, as I can see, upon any type of industry. It's certainly not working with industry, but rather against it.
The interesting point in all of this is that while in his news release the minister weighs very heavily upon the visits that have been made by the member for Nanaimo, as his parliamentary secretary, throughout the province, I am wondering whether there may have been some people making presentations there from California. I have not heard of a dairy herd exceeding 700 cows in British Columbia; in fact, I don't think there is one that's over 500. I have not heard of a poultry operation of 200,000 layers. Neither have I heard about a beef lot over 5,000 head of cattle. Then again, if in fact there was a beef lot of 500,000, it depends on what type of acreage we're looking at and what the surroundings are.
We hear about air quality and atmospheric emissions. In the district of Abbotsford, as well as in the municipality of Matsqui, most of the housing developments are up in the side hills, and the farmland is on the floodplains down below. It's quite normal that the farmers will be out there disposing of waste products over the land to make the crops grow on a day when the sun is shining in early spring. It's also on those days that the atmospheric conditions in fact allow that emission into the air. Most of the time the people mostly effected by that emission are those that live up on the side hills.
I can see exactly who the member for Nanaimo has been listening to. I can also see that the people who made presentations certainly were not in tune with the size of farm operations. That's why I'm most fearful that the figures in this booklet are absolutely exaggerated. As I see it, the minister will obviously revise those figures, which of course brings fear into the agricultural community. If these figures would stand as they are supplied in this booklet, "British Columbia: Handle With Care," the farming community wouldn't be all that much afraid. But this government is known for changing its course of action and making the regulations far tougher than what is intended through the bill that is presented. That's why I'm very concerned about this bill. It doesn't say anything. All it does is create a big bureaucracy, and it'll be fearsome not only to agriculture but to many types of industry wanting to establish or that perhaps already have established in the province.
C. Evans: I think it would be a good idea to explain what is really going on in words that people who don't work here can understand, because a lot of the talk we're hearing today is aesthetic in nature. It's in language that doesn't make a lot of sense; it contains threats about something that might happen if we do something that nobody understands. What's really going on here is pretty simple. We have a process right now which makes no sense and which nobody understands, and we're talking about replacing it with a process that makes a little sense and is upfront and public.
What happens if you want to build a dam, a pulp mill or a chemical plant right now? What happens if you want to build a smelter or a mine? You have to go through different processes for different purposes. You've got to go through the energy project review process, the mine development assessment process or the major project review process. Those are just the ones I have in front of me; there are probably others. Each industry has a bunch of consultants making a really good wage trying to understand the different processes by which you wend your proposal through government.
Now we have a minister who says: "I have a good idea. Instead of having a myriad of impossible-to-understand processes that wind up making money for lawyers and consultants, let's have something that makes sense. Let's have something that people can understand."
I went to a meeting awhile ago about a pulp mill that a company wants to build in British Columbia. I'm not going to embarrass the company by saying its name, but I just want to relate what the developer stated in the meeting -- which I found most amazing. He expressed some concern. He'd been trying to build his pulp mill under the previous government, and now he was trying to build his pulp mill under this government. He said:
[ Page 7127 ]
"Look, I know that governments make decisions in back rooms. That's okay with me. It's just that I can't find where the back room is so I can be there when the decision is being made."
What this legislation is trying to do is end the days when we make those decisions in back rooms. Among other things, this legislation says that there will be one process and a registry, and if somebody wants to build a pulp mill, they write that down and send it to one organization. Instead of taking ten years to deliberate, that organization has 35 or 40 days to say whether or not the application is written in such a way that it passes stage 1 of the process -- 35 or 40 days; that's less than two months.
[4:00]
What happens if it passes that stage of the process? It goes to the general public, and let me tell you what happens then. One major project in B.C. passed the major project review process since it was invented, and that was the pulp mill in Castlegar. It took 18 months of public hearings, argument and discussion before the company got permission to build that pulp mill. Is that what this legislation says? No, it says that there will be 15 to 30 days for the public to comment. If the project passes that stage, it will be referred to the ministers by the bureaucracy that members opposite are so afraid of. It'll be referred to the ministers with one of three recommendations: go, no-go or go back to be rewritten.
Is it a secret or is it graft that makes that decision? If you slip a few bucks to a politician, or if you slip a few bucks to a party at election time, does that make that decision? Maybe it does now. But the legislation says that the ministers are going to have to write it down, so folks opposite, the news media and the developers can read why the answer was yes, no or no-go. It is going to be a law, not a promise or political commitment. We're asking all the people who work in here to vote for a law that says politicians have to say in writing why they decided what they did. They can't get a few bucks, put it in their pocket and say go or no-go.
People are paying us to make laws that say we have to do our jobs in an honest way and then tell the public the truth about why we did it. I've been listening to people -- especially the hon. member who mines in his mind -- saying why this legislation is going to get in the way of the mining industry. For those of you who maybe don't know, at the present time it takes an average of six years to go from a staked claim to a mine -- six years. The three stages that I just named in this bill are: 35 to 40 days, stage one; 15 to 30, stage 2; and 45 to 60, stage 3. That's about six months; it's not six years.
There is not a real mining company operating anywhere in this province that is afraid of a six-month review process. The mining industry is especially afraid of processes that they don't understand or that imply they've got to pay off somebody in a room that they can't find.
The minister has sent out his delegate to go around the province and say to people: "Look, the processes we have in place now don't work. What do you want?" The public said they wanted a non-political process where the ministers or their delegates have to say in writing why they chose the answer that they did. The people who are threatening a capital strike because of this legislation are speaking rhetorically. Quite frankly, I don't even think that they believe it. Everybody here knows that if we get the nonsense, dishonesty and confusion out of the application process, it will make it easier for business to function in British Columbia.
I want to give you some examples, hon. Speaker. Right now, if you want to build an apartment house in Vancouver, you have to work within zoning regulations. That doesn't scare anybody. It has been going on for decades, and the developers are making really good money operating within the context of zoning regulations, which is, essentially, government saying where you can build an apartment house. Then if they say you can build an apartment house here if the public says it's okay, they've got to put up a big sign with their intent to develop an apartment house on this space. Then everybody can look at the sign, and say yes, it's a really good idea, or no. Then there's a hearing. In the hearing, the politicians coming out of the hearing have to say yes or no. It doesn't scare the developer. If the answer to the developer is yes, then they have a building code. They can't build a lousy building; they've got to build a building that fits the code. That doesn't scare the builders. They're out there building buildings all the time. All this legislation is trying to do is to bring the same integrity and common sense to the digging of a hole in the ground that we now have when building an apartment building.
Maybe a hole in the ground -- a mine, smelter, logging show or factory -- isn't right on the street where you live, so you can't assume that a great big sign is going to draw the public's attention. We said it would be really nice if you put an ad in the newspaper, a registry or a place where you could go and read: "Today Corky wants to build a mine." Then you'd have a time-limited chance to respond. That's just honest.
The truth is that the members opposite demean the business community when they say that business people are afraid of an upfront, honest, application process. Because business people are just like everybody else, they would rather do their business in view of the public's eye and know what the process is than be tricked or have a secret or backroom deal. This government believes that investment is more likely to come our way if investors understand the process, rather than continuing with the process which went on in the past: if you could buy the government, you could buy the answer to your question.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Under our standing orders, hon. members should be recognized before they engage in debate.
Will the hon. member please proceed.
An. Hon. Member: Apologize.
C. Evans: No, he doesn't have to apologize.
Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member, and address your remarks through the Chair.
[ Page 7128 ]
C. Evans: I think it's really good for the people of British Columbia to see the kind of debate that's being entered into here. We are dealing with a sophisticated society. There are poisons in the environment, and there are scary industrial processes that can ruin neighbourhoods and communities and people's lives. We are talking about a process to make those public, and the hon. member opposite decides to try to enter the debate by impugning my history rather than dealing with the law. It's a darned good law, and that's why folks over there can't deal with it: they have to deal with the messenger.
I'll tell you who is afraid of this law: business people who can't tell the truth and folks who are floating a stock scam on the basis of a secret -- not those people who actually want to dig a hole but those who want to dig the illusion of a hole and sell that bunko stock to some unsuspecting individual. This system is going to end the nonsense cowboy capitalism that replaces honest business in this province. This law is going to make it so that the gentlemen opposite will truly have free enterprise, which is also honest enterprise.
Interjection.
C. Evans: I'm really glad it got your attention. Maybe the next speaker will stand up and actually talk about the minister's legislation. If folks could hear people talk about it, they would know that it was an excellent development.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and I understand that he is the designated speaker on second reading of Bill 32.
G. Wilson: I rise to speak on Bill 32. Perhaps the members opposite should be better briefed on the content of their bill before they rise to speak on it, because Bill 32 doesn't only deal with digging holes in the ground. I know some cowboys; I don't know how many of them are capitalists. I'm not sure what cowboy capitalists are, but it certainly makes for entertaining discussion in debate.
I would like to speak to the principle of this bill, because this is without doubt a major piece of legislation, which I think a lot of people in British Columbia have been waiting to see. They are waiting to review it, and they want to know exactly what the impact is going to be. This bill is not only going to affect miners, loggers, and those involved in the development industry; it is going to affect all British Columbians. The bill attempts to set out regulations that are going to be used in order to determine the viability and approvability of a project, in terms of not only its environmental impact -- that would be something we would look at -- but also its economic, social and cultural impacts and the heritage effects. I fail to see what part of life in British Columbia isn't going to be dealt with by Bill 32.
Quite clearly, if one were dealing with simply the environmental impact, one could say that the regulation here was going to look at the principal impact on our hydrosphere, atmosphere and lithosphere, and we could look at that in terms of some technical aspect of measurement, something that could be scientifically demonstrated, proven and therefore documented. If it was simply going to look at the economic impact, one could argue that we have some empirical measurement potential there with respect to our economy. But when you talk about its social impact, that brings in values that are highly subjective. It brings in values which are often politically driven. It brings in values that will differ within a community, within a society generally. When we talk about its impact on cultural and heritage effects, then we are dealing with something that is even more amorphous, especially in the question of cultural impact.
What do we mean when we talk about the cultural effect of a particular project? How is that to be defined? In looking at the principle of this bill, we have to recognize the language of the document. When we look at laws and how laws affect people, it's important that we deal with the language, because the language is important. I use that phrase only because I quote from the member for Nanaimo who, when he was talking about gender-neutral language on Friday, was telling us that the language is important. Well, I can tell you that the language can never be more important than when you're looking at a bill as pervasive as this particular Bill 32.
In the principle of it, we're not just dealing with something that looks at environmental impact. We are looking at effects on environment, on economy, on our social structure and social order, and on cultural and heritage factors -- all of which are very inclusive and are going to touch the lives of every British Columbian.
We have to sort out why this bill is coming in. Let me say at the outset, now that we know what it is attempting to gain, that the first question that begs to be asked by anybody looking at this bill or looking at the need for a bill that comes intituled Environmental Assessment Act, is: is it necessary for us to have some form of regulation that assesses environmental impact prior to developments taking place? Is this bill necessary?
Hon. Speaker, I think you would say that some form of environmental assessment is indeed necessary in British Columbia in 1993. So the answer to that question is yes -- some form of assessment is needed. Do we feel that the approach taken here is the right approach? I can tell you that this opposition's point of view is that this approach is not the correct one. I'd be happy to tell you in general philosophical terms why we don't agree with the approach that is being taken here.
Thirdly, and I think it's important if we're to be a responsible opposition, we have to ask: what would we do differently? How, then, would we incorporate the principles that we espouse and that we believe in, that might do something different than what we see in the legislation in front of us? Those are the three areas that I'd like to address.
[4:15]
The first one is the question of need. There is no doubt that we simply must start to recognize the concept of limits to growth. I've said it before, I'll say it again, and it's important that the record stand on this
[ Page 7129 ]
question from my perspective: it is important that we recognize that if we're going to have a long, sustained economy and a society that has a great emphasis on quality of life and perhaps less emphasis on standard of living -- because one measure doesn't necessarily bring the other, where quality of life is important for all British Columbians -- and if we're going to have the protection of our atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere, the three fundamental bases upon which our resource base occurs, then it's clear that we need to make sure we have some protection measures in place to stop activity that is going to be negative and damaging to the environment. We need to have some means of doing that.
If we're going to do that, then surely the first place we have to start is in establishing a baseline of knowledge that lets us know where we are today. When you talk about the assessment-of-environment effect, you have to ask: how will this activity -- be it a mine, a logging activity or large residential development -- change what exists today? Is what exists today something that we see to be sustainable within the concept of our knowledge and understanding of the environment? If we don't have a baseline from which to make that judgment, and for most parts of British Columbia we do not, then how on earth do we determine whether the effect on it is going to be negative or positive?
With mining activity, we often talk about visual impact. We know that the people who are opposed to the Windy Craggy mine in the Tatshenshini are concerned about the visual impact of a bridge, because river rafters like a wilderness effect, so we have to weigh it. Is the visual impact of a bridge across a river that probably less than 1 percent of the population is going to travel down at any given time enough so that this project shouldn't go ahead? Others will be quick to stand up and say: "No, no. It isn't the visual impact of the bridge. What we're really talking about is the potential for leachate as a result of holding ponds because of the slag that comes out of the mining operation, and that leachate is going to damage the environment." The bridge is a highly subjective question that some will say is important and others will say is not. It's not something that can be measured in any empirical way. We can't set down a standard that says what the leachate problems are with the existing ore in the ground now and what is likely to happen with leachate as we move the extraction to where we want to process it and use it in our industries. The baseline work needs to be done.
I'm going to use an example with respect to what we can do differently. In my regional district we have what we call the inland sea, which is the Sechelt Inlet area. It's a very large body of water with Sechelt Inlet, Narrows Inlet and Salmon Inlet, and it includes a protected watershed with very limited oxygen exchange. There's not a great deal of tidal action because of the Skookumchuck Narrows at one end and Sechelt at the other. When we saw development taking place there.... What really triggered it was the propensity of fish farms to come into that protected water.
As an elected member at that time, I among others -- it was principally me -- stood up and said: "Wait a minute. Before we approve these projects, we have to have some means of assessing the environmental impact on that area." It's not that I'm necessarily opposed to fish farms, or to fish farms in Sechelt Inlet, although subsequently I did become very strongly opposed, because we found evidence of a potential hazard that was going to affect other activity. I wanted to set down a manner in which we could make that assessment work in the interests of the community and also investors so that they didn't waste valuable time, money and energy on something that was never going to be permitted. But most importantly, how could we keep the integrity of a sensitive and highly volatile ecosystem, in terms of its disruptive potential, from being further damaged?
We looked at how to establish some baseline work. We brought together all of the provincial and federal ministries that were involved, but we also brought representatives from industry and the community to the table. So that Hansard can record it, I would like to digress and give thanks for the significant and important role played by then Minister of Municipal Affairs Rita Johnston. When I told her the importance of bringing people together to make this kind of thing work, she provided the funding. We said that we were going to work by consensus, and nobody believed it could happen. The forest industry said they couldn't work with the fish-farming industry, and the fish-farming industry said they couldn't work with the community activists. There was a lot of infighting in provincial ministries over turf; at that time, the Ministry of Environment and Lands were different, and there was the Forests ministry. The federal government said that they didn't really have an interest. The most difficult of all to deal with was the Coast Guard, which had a mandate unto itself and didn't really want to participate.
But we pulled them together, and in that study, which is now printed and documented with everybody signing onto it, we established a baseline that would allow everybody to recognize that there were designations within that area that would permit certain activities. It wasn't zoning, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Crown lands and other agencies didn't want to have zoning jurisdiction place on lands outside of the regional district or municipal area. But it was area jurisdictions, which provided within it a description of that which could be sustained or would not have negative impact on the environment.
Part of that study which was lacking and which we could have used more of, was detailed environmental assessment of what existed in that inlet when we commenced. Coming back to my discussion, without a baseline or without knowing where we start from, it is impossible to determine what we are losing. It's like saying that if we establish a bank account, and we don't know what the balance of the account is but we're going to commence to write cheques on it, not only will we not know when we're overdrawn, but it is also going to be a tremendous shock when we eventually do
[ Page 7130 ]
overdraw and find that our cheques are starting to bounce.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I hear the member for Nanaimo saying: "Personal experience." I'm not going to get into the member for Nanaimo's personal finances; I wouldn't want to do that.
It is clear we have to have that baseline work done. What is perhaps philosophically wrong here is that it doesn't establish any mechanism to put in place a baseline description of what kind of activity is going to be determined within the province. All it says is that we're going to set down through this executive director -- and I want to talk about this executive director, because this is one of the biggest sticking points we have in this bill -- some means to set up a descriptive hierarchy of various activities that will be used in the review process. It says that we are going to categorize projects according to their size, production capacity and location.
For the first point, we ask if it is necessary. Yes, it is necessary; there's no question about it. But if we don't have a baseline to work from, then how are we to make anything other than subjective analyses of whether a project is good or bad? How are we supposed to put in place something that can allow an investor an opportunity, when they come to look at the investment of money toward a pulp mill, a mine, a housing development or any activity that's going to be impacting the environment, to know what their chances for success will be if they have to embark upon this expensive and highly bureaucratic review process without any real knowledge of whether or not they're going to have success?
Instead of this bill coming to us now, the first thing we should be seeing is the government taking step one, which is putting in place an opportunity to do some baseline work, which would involve a comprehensive land inventory for British Columbia. In that comprehensive land inventory, we should look at classifications of sites. I am not talking about small-lot sites. I am talking about the larger geological divisions within the province, which we have a great deal of knowledge about -- very little of which is connected, very little of which is gathered into any single holding and very little that is put into any compatible system so that we can start cross-referencing and cross-tabulation.
In the Sechelt Inlet study, I was horrified to find out that the Ministry of Crown Lands and the Ministry of Forests didn't even have the same mapping system. They couldn't even take two compatible maps, put them together and tell you what was going on. When they were computerizing, they computerized to two totally incompatible systems, and now we're moving into GIS, which is good. Step one is that we have to know what's here -- before we put in the rules and regulations to say what should or shouldn't happen. We have to know the capacity of the land to sustain; we have to know what areas we are going to look at -- developments in terms of reasonable or limited regulation; what are the areas in which we say that development in these sites is going to be a great hazard and have a great potential for environmental decay and damage; and we have to decide whether or not we are going to allow them to go forward at all. In other words, when we talk about comprehensive land use strategy, we have to have a strategy that says that some areas will be set aside. That is what limits to growth is all about: it's understanding that it is important to set aside some areas that we deem, for sound reasons, should not be subject to the kind of development that may seem to be in the interests of those investors who stand to make a profitable venture.
By doing that we send a clear signal to those investors coming into this province that because we have set aside those areas that are deemed to be hazardous or in which we do not to wish to have that kind of development, we now have an area where investment will be welcome, where we will encourage investment to take place. People know, when a permit has been granted to explore to see if there's a viable ore body, that we recognize there is a reasonable chance they're going to be able to go into production if they find something that's economically viable.
If I can point back again to the example I used before, which was Windy Craggy, that is what so many people had been upset about in the Tatshenshini decision. It wasn't the question of whether or not we should, although that's subject to debate; it's the question of permits being given, mining companies having spent money, a viable ore body having been discovered -- about green lights being on all the way down the railway track until we get a hundred yards from the station. Then, all of a sudden, the light doesn't go red; it goes amber. It warns that maybe you'll never get your train to the station, that maybe this little project you've just invested in may never get there. So we shunt it off to an environmental review.
What's in that environmental review? There is a whole series of different rules and regulations, and the rules and regulations change. It's kind of like a soccer team on the field, and every time they get down to the 30-yard line and they're ready to move in to score, you shift the goal. The goal isn't over here now; it's over there.
That speaks to my second point. What are we looking at in terms of the process for assessment in this province? We recognize that, yes, we need to have something, and we need a baseline. We need a comprehensive land inventory for this province. It's desperately overdue. We should have had it 20 years ago. We didn't know as much then as we know now, but now that we do know what we know, it's inexcusable that this government has not brought forward a measure to commence that comprehensive land inventory within a sensible set-aside policy, with a recognition that there are limits to growth because of a finite environment and that we simply cannot expand exponentially or indefinitely.
So we come to the second part of what I wanted to talk about. What is the assessment process here? Let's take a look at the production of coal thermal energy, for example, in the Kootenays. Here we have a situation where a company that was ready to get into thermal
[ Page 7131 ]
electrical production, which would have engaged and encouraged investment in the Kootenay region -- and the Kootenays were looking for increased investment -- finds that there is a policy of this government and this minister which says that restrictions will be greater in terms of acceptable emissions than the federal standards. Therefore this investor, because of the sulphur content of coal -- which was the lowest, I believe, in North America -- was no longer going to be permitted.
[4:30]
It's not a law. There's nothing on the books. You can't go to the statutes and sit down and read in black and white that this will be permitted and that that will not. So what do we see here? We see that we've got a group of people with the money. They have the potential for investment, they've got the market for sale. They've got everything that is required to go along. They also are able to meet the federal standards. And they're told that on the federal standards the province of British Columbia isn't going to accept it. They put in place a policy of emission standards that are simply not attainable under current technology.
So what happens? They invest in Alberta. Why wouldn't you invest in Alberta? It's cheaper and easier to move electrical power than it is to fight a government that moves the goalposts every time we try to set out what we want to look at in terms of the process. When they heard that this bill was coming down, they were pleased. Finally, they said, we are going to see put down in legislation a process that companies must engage in. It would be a process they could understand and comply with, so that they could either go ahead or not. But when we look at this process, how sadly disappointed we are with what the government has done.
What we hoped would be in place was an environmental assessment process that would first of all engage full public participation, not at the end but at the beginning of a review process. Secondly, we hoped it would be a process that engaged the public within the community in which they lived, again not at the end but at the beginning of the process. Thirdly, we hoped it would be a process regulated by a committee in which there was democratic involvement, so that there could be community-based acquiescence to and support of these projects. We could get the communities supporting, from the grass roots up, the economic growth and development of the regions of the province. That's what it's going to take. We no longer have a set of communities in B.C. that will accept this top-down economic theory, the idea that we will tell you what's good for your community, like it or not. They want this in advance of the work that's being done.
The Bamberton project is a classic case in point. Here we have a project of enormous magnitude. It is one of the largest residential developments in Vancouver Island's history. What the people want in the Bamberton case is the opportunity to have a proper review process undertaken. They want to have a review process in the beginning. They don't want it at the end when the land has already been rezoned, when the green light has already been given and the potential for great profit by flipping property has been provided. They want to have a sensible environmental assessment in the beginning of the process so they wcan hear from people who have some kind of expertise on whether or not the water supply is adequate -- because the water supply is going to affect a fairly significant region -- and on whether or not there is an effective waste management plan to protect the relatively fragile ecosystem in the Saanich Peninsula area. They also want to know whether the proposed densities are even possible on the site in question. When you look at the area that they want to put the road through, you're talking about major land construction there. Where is all the fill needed for this road construction going to come from? Where will the transport of material happen? How will we look at the questions about potential siltation, erosion and other problems from that transportation? What was requested was a sensible review process. Regrettably, notwithstanding this legislation which the members opposite say is great environmental assessment work, it seems that this government, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, has tossed out the review process. We're not going to review it until such time as the rezoning is completed and we've got the CVRD fully behind the land use question.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
In the Environment estimates I went directly to the minister, and said: "You're talking about this great revision in Bill 32 and you've put in place a process here. I don't particularly think it's the best one, but at least it's process. why wouldn't you then use that process on the question of the Bamberton site? Why not use the Bamberton area as your test site to see whether or not this works? But don't do it after; do it in advance of the land use question."
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Nanaimo says it wasn't written. This is true....
D. Lovick: It wasn't ready.
G. Wilson: Excuse me, it wasn't ready. It was written, but not ready. Perhaps like a fine roast it needs to cook for a while and then sit to allow whatever juices may be in it to settle out. I don't know.
The point is that while it may not have been ready, still the public hearing process at the CVRD continues. It isn't over. This government can say: "Adjourn your public hearing and, as a case study, we will use Bill 32 to do the environmental assessment work." Let's test this regulation. Let's see if it works before we put it into law. Let's check it out, and let's see if works.
D. Lovick: You don't want legislation. Be honest.
G. Wilson: I hear the member for Nanaimo saying I don't want legislation. The truth is, as I said at the beginning, that legislation is necessary.
[ Page 7132 ]
Hon. Speaker, I'm trying very hard to go through the Chair, but the member for Nanaimo is saying that we don't like this legislation and that we're putting in rules that make it impossible. That's not so. I just explained how, in the Sechelt Inlet strategy, we were able to bring together exactly the same players that are cited in this legislation with two additions: industry and the public. They were involved in the beginning of the process.
D. Lovick: We'll make you king. That will solve the problem.
G. Wilson: I didn't hear that. I thought maybe the member for Nanaimo was suggesting he was going to make me the executive director, which is a pretty powerful position, I can tell you.
D. Lovick: King, king, king.
G. Wilson: If it was king....
Interjections.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I'm flattered by their words of confidence and support in my abilities, but clearly....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I really hate to interrupt the very interesting conversations that are going on, but I have to remind hon. members that the member for Power River-Sunshine Coast does have the floor for the debate at this time.
G. Wilson: I know it's a problem for the members opposite when we criticize their bills with some substance and when they recognize that what we're saying has some merit. The principle of putting in regulations for environmental assessment is not really at issue. I would say, though not wanting to disrupt the flow of this debate, that the lives of our young people are clearly affected by the environmental impact of Bill 32, which is why I'm so delighted to be accompanied today by members of grades 3 and 4 of West Sechelt Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher, G. Struthers...
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
G. Wilson: ...which, in a moment, I'm going to ask leave to introduce, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: The hon. member knows full well that leave must be granted to give an introduction. While in this instance the hon. member has done so, I would not want members to make a habit of doing this in the middle of a debate. Leave is granted. Would you like to make your introduction, hon. member?
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would like to welcome the elementary school students from West Sechelt's grades 3 and 4, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Struthers and, I understand, some parents who are with them as chaperons. Would the House please make them welcome as they join us here today.
The Speaker: Recognizing that this is not a precedent, I now invite the hon. member to continue on second reading debate.
D. Lovick: We would have granted leave.
G. Wilson: I wasn't certain that the members opposite would have, having entered into this debate earlier on.
Coming back to the question of process and the Bamberton issue, there is no doubt that this is a prime development that should be subjected to this kind of environmental assessment. It's important that we have this legislation tested before we put it into law. If they want to do that, then let's see the merit of this government by saying that they are going to move toward a review on the Bamberton question.
Philosophically, what we would like to see in this legislation is a process that involves members of the community in the early stages of a development. We recognize that in doing that, it has to be an inclusive process that we would like very much to see have a much greater degree of emphasis on consensus-building in the community. This bill clearly doesn't do it. Inasmuch as it's an attempt to put in place some actions, I suggest that one of the reasons it doesn't do it is the incredible powers that have been granted to the executive director.
The executive director is worth looking at in terms of what we're dealing with in this bill. When I commenced my remarks earlier, I said that in the first part of the three parts of the debate I'd like to engage in, we have to understand that this bill doesn't only look at environmental impact; it also involves the economic, social, cultural and cultural heritage characteristics in the vicinity of a project. If you look at the power of the executive director.... First of all, this person is appointed by government. This executive director has tremendous powers in terms of the availability of the applicant to gain information and analysis plans, and so on. The executive director "may make available to the proponent the parts of the information," and so on.
Secondly, discretionary powers are granted to this individual with respect to the information that is provided or requested. So if we are going to have an executive director who has this kind of power appointed by government, philosophically we start to question whether or not this is the right way to go. Secondly, we see that the powers of the executive director with respect to requesting and therefore accommodating upon request amendments to applications are very substantial. I know that we cannot get into the substance of the language of this bill in second reading; we will do it in committee stage. But I really do ask people who want to read and understand this bill to take a look at section 11 in terms of the application, section 12, as well as subsection 13(3), where they talk about the limited amount of time the executive director must be involved with.
[4:45]
[ Page 7133 ]
Some people would say: look, this isn't bad; this is good. Because what it means is that government can't protract the process. Some people would say that this forces this executive director to actually take action when the application is in. But I come back to my earlier remarks. You see, the problem is that what is required of an applicant is not spelled out. What is required of an applicant in any particular project is not spelled out because there is no categorization of those projects; we haven't sat them down and categorized them out. We haven't said that there's going to be a series of land use studies done prior to this kind of thing to set out some general parameters within which those kinds of decisions can be taken.
What we have said in the bill.... I come back again to the reason we have such concern with it in principle: it says right in the beginning, in terms of that which is going to be reviewable, that "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations prescribing what constitutes a reviewable project for the purposes of this act." So in the very opening statement of the bill we don't even know what's going to be subjected to these rules. Because we don't, because we're waiting for regulations on it, it means that we're going to put into the hands of this executive director these discretionary powers, with the rights that this person is going to have to prescribe upon some applicants that they do certain kinds of actions and activities, and on certain others they may not.
There's no set of rules or regulations defined as to what will distinguish one from the other. There is no way that we can feel confident or comfortable that there is a set of prescribed rules in the legislation that will treat all applicants in a fair and equal manner. It doesn't say that that is going to be in here; in fact, it says quite the opposite. What we're likely to see, more often than not, in this bill, by the nature of the issues that the executive director is going to deal with.... Quite frankly, I don't envy this person, because environmental assessment is a very difficult and time-consuming thing, especially when you throw in matters of the economy, culture, society, questions of heritage and first nations' concerns, all of which are going to have to be dealt with through this bill.
What we recognize first is that not only is there no comfort that applicants will be treated equally and fairly but we're going to set up project committees. The member for Nanaimo seems astonished by this. I understand that he's been a key player in developing and drafting this, and I congratulate him. This is an excellent first step; with improvements, we can work this into a good piece of legislation. But this project committee, more times than not, is where we're going to be headed. Clearly, any organized protagonist or well-funded developer isn't going to take no for an answer if they believe they can move forward.
Without belabouring it, Bamberton is a case in point. We've seen lobbying, where letters have been sent to the Premier saying: "We have this longstanding NDP connection; therefore you should be looking after it." I only say that because the member for Nelson-Creston, in a most unabashed manner, freely admitted that government works through backroom deals. Read his Hansard comments if you doubt what I say. Unbelievable. He most unabashedly said that the government works through backroom deals, and we can see that that's been going on.
These project committees are going to be called on more often than not. Who gets to be on them? Come back to what I said first on the philosophical question around how this process should work: include the people in the community, the people who live there. Let's see who's on this: "The executive director may invite any of the following to nominate one or more individuals to represent the nominator...." Hon. Speaker, I know I can't get into detail, but the philosophical question has to be put on the record. You get to have a ministry agent, whoever is appointed, from the government of the province. Excuse me -- applicants are put forward, and the executive director gets to choose, because he may invite the nominations. You get a department official from the government of Canada. You get somebody from the municipality or regional district. You get somebody from the first nations, which this government treats on a government-to-government basis, and you get somebody from British Columbia's neighbouring jurisdictions. End of story.
An Hon. Member: In the vicinity.
G. Wilson: Only those that are in the vicinity of the project.
Where is the industry that's concerned in this? Where is the public? Where are members from the ratepayers' associations? Where are people from various social organizations -- if it's in Howe Sound, the friends of Howe Sound; or the friends of south Island? It says: "municipality or regional district." What about the Islands Trust? Are we going to bring them in on this proposition or not?
D. Lovick: How many would you like in total?
G. Wilson: Philosophically, the problem is that we want to have inclusion of the community. The member for Nanaimo is absolutely correct when he says that we have to put a limit on the number of people who sit on the committee. As someone who has been involved in community-based action committees on forestry, foreshore management and matters of development, I know that you have to limit the membership; otherwise, by having too many members, you end up making the decision much more difficult. But I also know that you're asking for real trouble if you exclude members from the community. Community members need to have a voice on such project committees. That's an amendment that this government has to recognize as wise and sensible. It's important to have community representation on these committees, because many times people who live in the community know as much or more about the sustainable value of their environment than people who sit in ivory towers in universities or in the Ministries of Municipal Affairs or Environment -- those who have all kinds of book training and are well-schooled in principles but don't
[ Page 7134 ]
understand the intrinsic nature of the region and community in which they live.
I learned that firsthand by looking at the process I talked about earlier on the Sechelt Inlet study and strategy. There were people there who had lived in that region for 30, 40 or 50 years and who understood not only the baseline -- how the environment had changed -- but what the potential impact was going to be. They had done a great deal of work and collected a great deal of information that was invaluable to the committee's final deliberations on what should or should not proceed. So it's critically important that we do not exclude members from the community.
In the final analysis, while the power to approve or reject a project obviously rests with the minister, the process should include a clear right of appeal. In our judgment, one has to have a way to appeal the decision, because mistakes can be made either way: allowing a development that we see is negative as times progress, or being unduly restrictive because of the interests that become involved. Clearly we have to have some process of appeal, but I don't think that long, expensive litigations are the best way.
How, then, do we deal with the process if this isn't the way to go? This is why I suggested we need an opposition that is going to be much more responsible than the former opposition, which is now the government of the day. We have to provide some sensible, tangible solutions to the problem. We want to try to set in place regulations that are simple in nature and easily understood and that will not change. We need to have consistency in the provision of environmental assessment. That's the first objective.
I can tell you that the principles of this bill entrench power in the hands of the minister and a handpicked executive director, who have all kinds of discretionary powers to involve consultation or not. Looking at the public's opportunity to come in to this leads to my second point. The opportunities for the public are spelled out in section 28. It quite clearly says:
"Within 7 days after preparation of the project report specifications for an application, the executive director must (a) give notice to the public inviting written comments describing any concerns about the...analysis..., (b) file a copy of the notice at the project registry, (c) specify a period, of at least 15 days but no more than 30 days during which written comments in response to an invitation under this section must be received at the office...."
That's simply not enough. In a proper review process for those kinds of developments, you can't have such lack of involvement. If you move to that process, the goalpost will be shifting every time you have another group moving in and providing the commentary in written form.
You need to set the guidelines ahead of time. You need to have the baseline done in the first place, so that the people who are proponents of a project know that they have a better than even chance of success before they even start. They need to know whether the government is going to entertain this kind of development before they invest their initial capital. The proponents also need to know whether there are lands set aside or whether communities have decided that they should not be subjected to activities that they have deemed unworthy. Then the proponents know that there's no point in wasting their valuable time, energy, money and investment in trying to go forward. The only way that you can set out that kind of baseline strategy is if you consult with the people in the first place. You consult with the people ahead of the project, not at the end of the project.
The better review process that we would like to have would remove the centralized control in this bill, and not have the kinds of powers that are granted to this executive director, an enormously powerful appointee of government, who can now come in and make arbitrary assessments. We also have to have a process that includes the community and says in principle that we want to decentralize government authority and decision-making and move it more directly to those people who will be most directly affected. This process is going to be subject to committee review and all kinds of dissension; it's going to create greater division, not greater harmony, and make project assessment much more difficult.
The third point that we have to recognize is that we have to spell out what we are asking people to do when they get in here. This is very much like giving a contractor a plan of a house and saying you haven't really drawn the blueprints yet, but you've sketched out the kind of house you'd like to have. You're not really sure what the size of the lot is going to be, and you haven't even got the approval for the foundation yet, but you'd like them to start on Monday morning. How on earth is it possible to get all of that together? You can't do it this way; you can't structure it this way.
Prior to its being brought forward into the Legislature, we need to move this particular bill into a review process that first and foremost creates the inventory; secondly, provides the rules, regulations and principles upon which it's going to be founded; and thirdly, provides the process by which we can have a reasonable and sensible assessment of what's taking place. So the third point, hon. Speaker, is that in principle, we find it difficult to support a bill that does not tell us precisely what it is intended to try and accomplish.
[5:00]
I want to just spend a bit of time on that, because I don't want.... I know the members opposite are ready to load up their guns, fire away and say: "Look at these guys over there, these opposition members" -- and I use the term "guys" with the greatest deference, in a totally gender-neutral way -- "saying that they don't want an environmental assessment bill." That is not what we're saying. Let us be absolutely clear that that's not what we're saying.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Nanaimo is saying: "Well, that's not what the members of the third party are saying." I can't speak for the members of the third party, nor would I pretend to.
Notwithstanding the date, 1993, we have to have some form of environmental assessment protection --
[ Page 7135 ]
there's no doubt about it. Everybody knows that we have to recognize that. I come back to the very first point that I spoke about in principle, as I come to the conclusion of my remarks here today. What is the underlying philosophy of this bill? What is the underlying principle of this bill? What is it that this bill seeks to do in principle? We have just talked about some of the intrinsic problems with it. It says that it is going to look after effects on the environment. No argument -- we have to have something that assesses environmental impacts before investment takes place, so that we have sound regulation that protects our water, air, land, hydrosphere, lithosphere and atmosphere. All of us know that.
But then it talks about effects that are economic. In principle, should the Ministry of Environment be making decisions that are going to allow economic impact and imperative? Is this the economic environment we're talking about? If it's the economic environment, what is the principle of this? Is this bill going to allow the particular philosophy or direct area that members opposite have to be implemented in terms of the economy of the province? I flag that point, because I want to come back to it as I conclude my remarks, because it's very important.
It then says that they want to regulate the social environment. What does that mean? What does it mean, when you've got a government that is putting in place legislation that provides enormous centralized power with virtually no community input or control of any substance at all? It is going to provide an appointed executive director with the kind of powers that I've just outlined to put in place regulation that isn't spelled out. We have no idea what that regulation is going to be. No baseline work has been done. We don't even have a beginning point to know where we're coming from. What does it mean when we say that it's going to regulate the social environment? As I said earlier -- I come back to it to emphasize the point -- that is a highly subjective analysis. What is good for our society and what is not good for our society depends on where you're coming from philosophically and ideologically.
Lastly, when we talk about how this works, we look at cultural and heritage effects. I think that refers to matters with respect to the first nations, which are included here. Let me talk a little about that for a moment, because in looking at environmental impact work, one of the things we obviously have to understand and that Bill 32 begins to address is that there is going to be ever-increasing concern expressed by first nations people, meaning the aboriginal population. It says here that "`first nation' means an aboriginal governing body, however organized and established by aboriginal people within their traditional territory in British Columbia." "Within their traditional territory in British Columbia" is a big phrase that's being dealt with by a ministry that has set aside a substantial portion of its staff to deal exclusively with the whole question of land claims.
I have to be extremely careful as we move into this particular area of debate, because one can be so quickly and often branded as anti-aboriginal or, worse yet, racist when one talks about this. But the point -- the honest truth -- is that the environmental regulations and impact study work that provide an opportunity for aboriginal people to have a say as to whether or not an investment will proceed do not have an equal reverse effect. The hard truth is that while this act will provide an opportunity for aboriginal people to say yes or no to development investment in a community, there is no such legislation to empower non-aboriginal people to have an equal say as to whether or not an environmental impact study should be done on lands that are currently under aboriginal jurisdiction. I don't say that with any malice. I don't mean malice toward the aboriginal people at all. I simply point out an inequity, and one that is a growing inequity in our society with respect to jurisdiction. I'm talking only about jurisdiction; I'm not talking about social worth or social value.
I hope that all of the legislators, no matter what their political stripe.... Hansard will record it for future reference, because mark my words, what I say to you today is going to come to be in British Columbia unless we change the way we're doing things. It is going to be very difficult for a community to understand why it is possible for first nations, deeming their interests to be affected, to have an involvement in a committee to review a non-aboriginal investment on lands outside of their territory when there is not a reciprocal opportunity for non-aboriginal people to do likewise on aboriginal land. Whether we accept it or not, whether people like to point a finger and call me names or not, it is going to be a problem. What we are doing, which this bill pretends to address -- and only pretends -- is dividing our people on the basis of jurisdiction and matters of authority in terms of jurisdiction over lands that are distinguished on the basis of membership to one particular group or another.
I have a real concern when they talk about culture and heritage effects. What does that mean? This minister had better explain it, because we're sitting on a volatile time bomb in this province, and it's not one of my creation. I don't believe it's the creation of most aboriginal or non-aboriginal people, but it's there. If we don't deal with this in a fair and equitable manner, and if we don't find a mechanism where this is going to be explained to the comfort of British Columbians, we're asking for some serious trouble.
What does the word "cultural" mean? Philosophically, from a principle perspective, how can the Minister of Environment and an executive director, with the appointed powers they have, and the board, this review committee they're going to establish, make a sensible land use decision -- because in the final analysis, all the Minister of Environment is going to be permitted to do is to make a land use decision -- if there is going to be a "cultural impact" assessed?"
I lectured for many years, and one interesting lecture I always dealt with was....
Hon. J. Cashore: You're lecturing now.
G. Wilson: The Minister of Environment says that I'm lecturing now. I hope he's taking notes, because perhaps he will learn something from this discussion.
[ Page 7136 ]
One interesting thing we used to talk about was what constitutes this question of culture in Canada? How is it going to be dealt with? If it's cultural and heritage effects -- and I note that there is no comma between the two.... As the member for Nanaimo said in a private member's statement: "Words are important." Yes, and so is the way they're written, with their particular punctuation and grammar. It says "cultural and heritage effects." Clearly we're talking about matters of importance to first nations people. I have absolutely no objection to that at all, provided there is some equitable and reciprocal manner for dealing with this.
If you don't want to take my word for it, I would suggest that we look at the impact of something such as a beehive burner in the Fraser Valley, where air emissions and fly ash are being allowed to continue because it's happening on land that is under federal jurisdiction, under the Department of Indian Affairs, and not under provincially regulated environmental laws. The question of effluent dispersal, where effluent is being allowed to run freely into rivers, can't be covered by this act, because it's on land that is currently under federal jurisdiction and not under the jurisdiction of the province. Where there is an attempt to put in place a secondary processing industry that has air, water and land emissions that could not be tolerated under this kind of review process, this review process won't apply to those because it isn't happening on lands for which this particular legislation has jurisdiction.
I caution this House and the people of this province that if we move toward this third order of jurisdiction without any legitimate means of having regulations that are equal and fair and that are applied in a manner that is conducive to all people, we are asking for serious trouble. Let there be no question about that. I mean that with no disrespect to any particular group or individual in this society who may be hearing my words today. I merely hope to ring an alarm bell that people will start to listen to so they will understand what is out there, because we are creating inequalities. We are creating divisions rather than creating equality, a system where every Canadian is indeed equal to every other.
I come back to the question of economic effect and to the very first point I made when I opened my discussion on this debate, which had to do with the underlying philosophy of the principles involved in this bill. Does this government believe in the sustainable development concept of the Brundtland commission, which has driven environmental assessment regulations and rules all over the province and country -- indeed, some might argue all over the world? Or does this government now believe in the new concept -- which the Round Table on the Environment is making presentation to, and their report will be released in a very few days -- where they've gotten rid of the sustainable development concept, and they now talk about sustainability? Does it believe in the sustainability concept? If it does, what is an economy based on sustainability? What philosophically drives that economy? Or is this government true enough to some very sensible and rational convictions and is it brave enough to stand up and say: "No, what we are really talking about here are limits to growth"?
I know that when I stand and say that, those are not popular words for large-scale investors in the province. They are not popular words for people who want no regulations or restrictions, who don't want to be hampered in any way. These are not popular words for people who simply want to go out and exploit their environment and the communities to make wealth -- something that is easily obtainable. But we have to understand the realities of the environment in which we live. We have to understand that if we're going to put environmental assessments in place, we have to do so with a recognition of those limits to growth. We have to recognize this, notwithstanding what might sound good to those who may wish to finance political campaigns -- whether it's unions involved in the extraction of timber or large corporate sector enterprises that like to give large sums of money to other political parties.
One of the strengths of this political party, one of the things that we stand proud for and that as the leader of the Liberal Party I have always stood for, is the fact that we are not under anybody's financial thumb. There are no strings. As a result, we are not beholden to any special interest group that may finance us and say therefore: "Now deliver for us." What we are able to do is speak out on the principles that matter not only to this generation but to future generations of British Columbians.
When you talk about the principle of this bill, my suspicion is that what this does is simply provide a greater mechanism for the government to make decisions to drive a government agenda. Philosophically and in principle we disagree with this, because what we want is a bill that runs and drives the agenda of the people in the communities of the province. They want wealth, they want development, they want investment, and they want jobs for their children. These are not people who want to shut all this out. What they don't want is the heavy hand of government coming down from upon high and saying: "You can have this, but you can't have that." There's no rational reason why you can have this but not that, because there's nothing in this bill that spells out what it's going to be.
The investors coming into this province don't want a government that says: "Bring your money, spell out your investment, and then we'll make the rules up as we go along, to see whether or not what you're going to do is acceptable to us." They want a set of rules fairly and equally applied and that they know exist from the outset. They want the assessment to take place up front. Let's have the assessment done before we spend the money. Let's have that assessment done properly so that we don't run into an Alcan problem, where the company can turn around and say: "Look at the billions of dollars we've invested in this. We've got the project two-thirds completed. Sure, maybe there are some environmental and downstream concerns, and so on, but we defy anybody to turn around now and say this project can't proceed. We'll take them to court and really nail them to the wall."
[ Page 7137 ]
All of that should be done in advance, with the inclusion of community members so that those members not only understand the nature of what is being proposed for the development but can get behind it. They can support it, they can be involved in it, they can benefit from it, and the community can draw wealth from it.
I must confess that when the Sechelt Inlet study started -- and I talked about that in the first part of my speech -- many people said it wouldn't work. I believed it could work; a handful of people that worked with me believed it could work. But when we got all the ministry people together -- provincial and federal -- and when we got the industry and the community together, we all sat down and said: "What we're doing now is setting out an area designation, and we're going to do an environmental impact as well as a development impact on the Sechelt Inlet, and we want to do it by consensus." Most people said: "Gordon Wilson, you're out of your mind. You'll never get people to agree."
[5:15]
It took two long, hard years of assessment and evaluation, baseline study work and the good work of Catherine Berris and Associates, who came to provide the professional expertise that was needed and who did a lot of environmental work. After that two years, what did we have? We had everybody buying in and signing on, and we had a dispute resolution mechanism that everybody could agree would work to the interest and favour of all parties. What did we find? We found that when it was tested, those people who played a part of that found that the test would work. Even though there was conflict on the Chaudi�re, when it went down, we looked at this study and asked: "What does the study say? Is this something that can be done, or do we need to go into a long environmental impact study?"
We found that the zoning, the area designation and the work that had been done were permissible. Even though the process was flawed -- and it was, because there was no early involvement of the Sechelt Indian government district and there should have been -- when people finally came together on that process, we were able to use something that provided the resolution and detailed work that was needed.
This legislation doesn't have those qualities. What this doesn't do is....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I can't help resist the comment from the member for Nanaimo. He says a lot of people say the process was a disaster. The process was a disaster in terms of the portion dealt with by this government through the Ministry of Crown Lands. It didn't work because it wasn't properly referred, but when it was finally referred to the Foreshore Advisory Task Force -- which still sits and I still chair -- we were able to bring the parties together and come to a reasonable resolution on the question, notwithstanding the fact that the Sechelt Indian government district felt that they hadn't been involved.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: I hear people say that it took two years. It did take two years, but once we....
As the critic, I know that I have some time. I request, hon. Speaker, that you allow me this digression to tell the hon. member a story to give him my point. I know that some members of my caucus have heard this story before and, if so, I'll allow them to nod off.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: This is the corn-borer story. I want this member to understand why two years is not a bad thing. Some years ago, a farmer in the Fraser Valley noted that a lot of corn was dying in the fields. When they went to investigate why this corn was dying, they realized that it was because of a little insect, a corn borer, that was boring into and feeding on the stalk of the corn. Of course, the solution is the Bill 32 solution, which says: "Let's go out and get a better pesticide so we can zap these little corn borers." They did. They spent all kinds of time and money to zap this little critter. A couple of people said: "Wait a minute. Why don't we take a bit more time to find out why some corn is affected and some is not?" What did they do? They started a study on what was attracting the corn borer. They found that some corn was storing sugar in the stalk and that excess sugar was attracting this little bug. So they started some analysis on the soils, and they found that the pH balance in the soils was different in the areas where the corn was storing sugar and where the corn was not. They started some rudimentary work on the soils to remove the sugar. What they found was that when they put the soil in proper balance, the corn no longer stored sugar -- and without the sugar it was no longer attracting the corn borer. By properly managing the soils, they eradicated the corn-borer problem on those fields. That is the solution that I am proposing.
Hon. Speaker, what happened to the Bill 32 proposal?
Interjections.
G. Wilson: I'll wrap this up very quickly, because I realize this is an extended diversion.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please do.
G. Wilson: In the Bill 32 version, they found that this little critter built up an immunity to the pesticides, so they had to get even stronger pesticides to try and kill it. The difference, in the first instance, is that when you get the soil properly balanced, you have a solution that lasts forever.
The two-year proposal that we did on the Sechelt Inlet study provided a baseline document upon which development can be built -- ad infinitum now -- because it did the basic work that was needed. It wasn't a top-down approach that said: "Let's take each project as it comes, and we'll make some kind of decision on the basis of each one." It was: "Let's do a
[ Page 7138 ]
comprehensive land inventory with baseline work, let the community decide what kind of development we want in these areas, and then put the regulation in place to allow that development to happen." That is the proper way to go, and that's what we're proposing. That's not what this bill does. For those who prefer the Bill 32 version, we are now finding out that when this fails you're going to have to get a stronger pesticide to go after the little corn borers out there.
This bill doesn't do what it intends to do, because it is so lacking in specifics. When it says reviewable projects and assessment process, what are the reviewable projects? All British Columbia should know that the reviewable projects are not spelled out in this bill. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make legislation prescribing what constitutes a reviewable project for the purposes of this act. You haven't even figured out what insects you're trying to kill with this pesticide, let alone having the right pesticide.
We need a solution to this problem on environmental impact work that has longevity and one that can be used in British Columbia with a greater degree of comfort to those people in the community. This bill, unfortunately, doesn't provide it. Not that we don't need some kind of environmental assessment; clearly we do. I hope my words have underscored strongly that we have to recognize that if we're going to have sensible development in British Columbia, if we are going to protect the public trust -- and to me that is one of the most sacred investments that the people put in me when they entrusted me with serving them as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- we have to do so in a manner that has longevity. We are going to have to do so in a manner that puts in place baseline work that establishes what exists, allows us an opportunity to decide what should go forward, and then puts a blueprint for development on it so that when people bring their investment they know that that investment has a reasonable chance of success.
In a nutshell, the principle of this bill is to give the minister and his appointed executive director greater powers, to provide greater centralized control over what takes place and what does not and to provide a much faster process. This process is going to be inconsistent, because the rules will not be fairly applied and nothing in this document requires it. Furthermore, this bill recognizes that a fair application of the rules would be impossible because of the different size, different impact and different development of the bill.
We don't need greater centralization of control in the hands of this or any other minister of this government. We do not need greater authority in the hands of an appointed bureaucrat, as you would in the executive director. We do not need a review process that simply brings agencies of government together at the high end and passes down an edict to communities that says that this can go on or that cannot. We need a decentralization of power from the government hierarchy in Victoria to the communities in which people live. We need a consistent set of rules spelled out and fairly applied. We need to have that in a baseline manner that allows people an opportunity to see that British Columbia is not only for investment but is open for sensible environmental development in the investments that will take place.
We believe that this bill has come in without clear thought and without the kinds of concerns that we have talked about. As mentioned earlier, we believe that Bamberton, for example, could be a good test case to see if this kind of system might work, and we would advocate that the government might want to do that.
Because we believe there are so many aspects of this bill that have not been clearly looked at, I take this opportunity to move that the motion for second reading of Bill 32 be amended by deleting the word "now," and substituting therefor the words "six months hence."
The Speaker: I will allow the debate to proceed on the amendment while the Chair considers the amendment.
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: I rise to speak in favour of this amendment. As we've been saying throughout second reading debate on Bill 32, there are some serious concerns with regard to how the bill will be implemented and the fact that there's no accompanying regulation with the bill. The bill is very far-reaching and does fundamentally restructure the way in which environmental assessment occurs throughout the province.
On the one hand, we can say to the government that we do recognize there was an extensive public consultation process before the bill was presented to the House. But one need only ask: if the bill was perceived to be important enough for extensive public consultation prior to its drafting, why has it come before the House to be rushed through so quickly? Why is the bill not being sent out...? It has 108 sections. All of the sections are dramatic changes to the way environmental assessment occurred in the past.
We have a repeal of the assessment under the mining ministry, a repeal of the Utilities Commission assessment, the new position of executive director being created and a new committee being set up. And we know that once the bill has been passed we have a lot of concerns with regard to public input. Once the bill has come forward, why would the minister and his parliamentary secretary -- most particularly the parliamentary secretary, the member for Nanaimo, who I am sure thoroughly enjoyed his travels around the province, meeting with the people of the province and putting this bill together -- not then want to have another travelling road show, particularly as we recognize this government's propensity for travelling road shows? If nothing else, we could perhaps piggyback this public consultation with the road show that we have for electoral reform.
The reason that we would like a six-month hoist is that it does appear more and more that we may be having a fall session to review legislation. This is the perfect candidate to allow to sit on the books over the summer, to allow to be distributed throughout the province, to industry -- most particularly, I would think, to the mining industry. I would think that this government would want to send out a signal.
[5:30]
[ Page 7139 ]
One of the members from the Kootenays was talking about how he wants to differentiate between the cowboy capitalists of the mining industry and the responsible members of the mining industry. If that's the case, then this bill is a good candidate for the government to put out to the mining industry as a friendly gesture. We know that the mining industry is feeling extremely upset with the way things have been going in the last year and a half, and investor confidence is very low in the mining industry. One very simple way for the government to send out a signal to increase consumer confidence, and most particularly investor confidence -- foreign investor confidence being one -- would be to hoist this bill. Let the bill go out for debate, and once there has been debate we can come back to the House in the fall and debate it more thoroughly. Hopefully, six months from now we would be able to see the draft regulations to accompany this bill. That's a serious concern. What are we debating here? We do know some of the bill's components, and from what we see of those, we're extremely concerned.
The people who can recommend people to sit on the committee are all various levels of government. As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast pointed out, just as right now we're fighting for public input in the final drafting of the bill, and just as we would like to have feedback before the draft regulations go forward, it's extremely important to recognize that the public should actively participate in putting together the committee. If the purpose of the bill is to ensure that responsible land use decisions are always taken when it comes to the environmental assessment of a site, then surely we want the people who will speak up the most vocally when the final land use decision is made. Since it's the public who will ultimately be most affected by land use decisions, surely we want the public represented at the table.
There's not even a provision to ensure that there are elected representatives, other than the minister himself, to the committee. We have various levels of government. We have, for example, a representative who would be appointed. Recommendations will be made by the federal government, the provincial government, and regional and local governments, and by the aboriginal peoples, who are recognized by the government, in some nebulous, undefined way, as a government. We have yet to understand how this government will be dealing with them, because they refuse to clarify it. These various levels of government and different jurisdictions are able to put someone forward, yet we have no mechanism for grass-roots input, no mechanism for the public to have a direct voice. There is not even a mechanism for accountability other than the accountability that would be in the office of the minister. That's hardly acceptable, because the minister is an agent of cabinet, and an agent of cabinet is going to be bound by the rules that govern a cabinet. It should be someone who lives in the area where the project is proposed and is able to understand how it will impact him or her and can therefore bring that perspective to the table.
It's very easy to see a situation where the public perspective is dramatically different from that of the people in the various levels of government. The example, of course -- and I believe it came up earlier -- is the referendum debate. We had every single level of government on one side, and a dramatic majority of the people on the other. Where in this bill is there an avenue that would allow grass-roots people -- for the lack of a better word -- or a spokesperson from the general public to have some kind of input?
In lieu of that, there should be some comfort given by this government that there will be tailored regulations or some public process with regard to the development of the regulations so, if nothing else, there would be public input into that. There doesn't seem to be any sign of that. I'm not sure if there is an embargo on discussing the regulations, but we've heard nothing from the ministry about where they're going to go with regard to regulating this bill. That's a big concern.
Last year when we had Bill 29 before the House, the Waste Management Amendment Act, 1992 -- which subsequently came forward -- three possibilities for draft regulations with regard to that bill were put forward. We had heard rumblings as to which way the government was leaning. We could look at the enabling bill in light of the three potential scenarios. From that perspective we could analyze the bill in terms of how it would impact the public, the consumer, industry and the taxpayer.
Here we have a bill that will have a major impact on the people of the province, not only in terms of jobs or industry but also in terms of the level of comfort they might feel with regard to the environmental assessment process, which will be changed. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, being the lead critic on this bill, said emphatically that we recognize that we have been long overdue for a change in the environmental assessment process, and we recognize that the best way to enact that change would be to streamline it and put it into one structure and have the rules very clearly defined. Yet we don't see that. We see a move toward one structure, but within that we also see an executive director with sweeping powers to bring about great changes in an arbitrary manner, in a vacuum of regulations. We see the minister being able to arbitrarily decide what is a reviewable project. Even a project that is currently in existence can up for review and can then therefore be deemed unsuitable through the environmental assessment process and put aside without appeal and compensation. We see a committee being brought forward with no avenue for public representation to the committee. So what is it about the mechanism that has been put in place that we can feel any comfort with, when there is no regulation? Clearly there is very little. It's interesting that this has been an evolving process of debate on second reading, and although I don't like to take any knee-jerk reaction with regard to legislation, there is some potential in this bill. If it were properly regulated, with a couple of amendments it might be the kind of legislation that we could support in principle. But even in the evolution of this debate, we're finding out more and more about the potential impact of the bill and the way in which the bill can be tailored and interpreted and have devastating consequences -- not just for industry and in terms of
[ Page 7140 ]
jobs but also in terms of people who are worried about a land use decision in their own back yard and who have no avenue for appeal or input and no real recourse.
Hon. Speaker, with that in mind, I would very much urge the members of this House to support a hoist, because a hoist motion is the only suitable motion when we're faced with legislation of this magnitude. To give an example, we know that last fall $3 million was spent to bring Bill 84 before the House. The Legislature was convened for one particular piece of legislation. We all realized that this was going to have a fundamental, far-reaching impact on how labour was going to be able to respond to the needs of industry and be legislated and regulated. However, with Bill 32 we see that labour is going to be affected in terms of potential jobs -- or lack of potential jobs -- with regard to the land use decision. We have neighbourhoods that may be affected. We have parts of the province where nobody may even be interested in settling yet; and yet all of these things come forward through Bill 32 for assessment, review and potential -- to allow it or not allow it. We have very little time for debate. We have it brought forward in a hurry. There is very little preamble to the bill being brought forward. There is no indication of the regulations. That's very serious. I don't understand how the government could expect us to stand up and allow this to go through very quickly when we don't have the tools necessary for a thorough debate of the implications of the bill.
As the leader of the party -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- was pointing out with regard to the Sechelt Inlet study, they have an integrated resource management plan. I've been able to go there as Environment critic and witness how it functions. We had the member for Cariboo North saying earlier that it took two years. It may have taken two years, but based on what I've seen of Bill 32, that could be a six-year or seven-year process that could come into place. Even then there's no guarantee that there will be consensus at the end of it, especially when you recognize that neither the public nor industry is at the table. So what is it consensus on? If you get this committee to be in consensus, it's a committee that's -- for lack of a better word -- incestuous, because it's all government appointees. There's no public and there's no industry representation. So for that purpose, big deal if there's a consensus.
At the point that they come up with consensus on a land use decision, you could have the very people who are being affected -- whether that be residents' associations, environmental groups or industry -- saying: "But nobody asked us; nobody talked to us. Where do we get a chance to have our say?" At which point you say: "I'm sorry, but the only way that you could have your say is if there were a hoist motion put in place right now, and we could allow this bill to be debated thoroughly over the summer."
It is something that to me seems to be lacking in terms of the government's perspective on this bill. If this government is going to say that this bill is so incredibly important and wonderful that they want it to be put through very quickly, then I would urge them, if it is such a great piece of legislation, to put it to the people. Take it out to the public.
We tried to get them to slow down on the labour bill, and yet we still had two and a half months of that. We know that we're near the end of the session. Here's a bill that was introduced at the end of the session. It's going to be rushed through very quickly.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear the Minister of Advanced Education saying that he hopes we're here till December. It's interesting that he wants to be here until December. I think that might give us adequate time for public review and process.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member for Nanaimo is talking about dedication. Where is the dedication to the public process that was started in the consultation leading up to the bill? If this government is honestly committed to public process, why are they so eager to consult before they come up with the decision? Then, once the decision is made, they dig their heels in and we're stuck with it.
I see that the Minister of Advanced Education doesn't understand how important this bill is. I think that's truly unfortunate. As we heard from one of the members from the Kootenays earlier, when any member in debate cannot take issue with the substance of the debate being put forward, then that member chooses to attack the person personally. That's unfortunate. I think it indicates that even a member of cabinet can't understand that the public will be very seriously affected by this bill. Given the fact that the member for Nanaimo has talked with most of the members of the public in the province in putting together this bill, and in light of the fact that he feels very confident that they will approve this process, I would encourage him to take this wonderful -- in his mind -- piece of legislation to the public. If he gets an endorsement, I will be the first person to stand up and say: "I see. So the public is happy to not have a voice at the table; industry is comfortable not being there; they don't mind the powers of the executive director; they are happy to allow the minister to review a project and allow that project to go through the process, be considered unfit, and not have an avenue for appeal or compensation." If that's how the public feels, fine. We in the opposition will yield to the public will, because ultimately that is who we are here to represent. But there are more than three million people in this province. Many of us will be affected, even if it's in terms of environmental impact on the one hand or economic impact on the other -- in terms of lessening of taxation revenue when we see the mining industry grind to a halt.
We in the opposition would very much like a six-month hoist. We hope the government understands how important it is. If this government is sincerely committed to having an Environmental Assessment Act in place that the public feels comfortable with, then this
[ Page 7141 ]
government will feel comfortable enough to allow it to come back in the fall session. That would allow us time to canvass people, take it out to the groups and then come back to the House with a more thorough understanding of how people outside this Legislature will respond to the bill.
We understand that in drafting of any legislation it's very easy to fall prey to the ivory tower of the Legislature. In British Columbia, most particularly, we have been criticized for being cut off from the public once a bill comes before the House, and it's been said that we often don't understand the needs of the public. In consideration of the fact that we could be falling prey to the ivory-tower concept, I am prepared to accept that maybe my reading of the public mood is wrong. Maybe my reading of the public mood -- of wanting to get involved, to participate, to know how government works and how government serves them and where the tax dollars are going -- is wrong. If I am wrong, I am prepared to stand up in the fall and say that it was a mistake. Six months is not a long period of time when legislation of this magnitude is coming before the House.
However, if the government is wrong, it should be big enough to recognize that there can be some significant amendments to the bill, and that through those amendments it can become a better way to serve the public interest. It can be a better reflection of the public mood right now. It can be a much better way of dealing with the issues that come before this House, especially when we look at the fact that so many parts of the public are impacted by this bill, be it industry, neighbourhood associations, local government or even federal government regulations and legislation. If it's a case of this government feeling very confident, why are they in a rush to bring it through now, rather than six months from now? It's quite clear to me that six months from now we'll be no worse off.
[5:45]
If the government wants to act within the principle of this bill today, the leader of the party, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, raised the Bamberton project. The government could choose to act there in the principle of this bill today, before it passes. The government is always free to strike up a similar committee. The minister's office can act in lieu of the executive director. The parliamentary secretary could become more involved.
I have in front of me a letter from the Business Council of B.C. that was sent to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as House Leader. This letter from Jerry Lampert, the president and CEO of the Business Council of B.C., is very strongly worded, and says:
"I am writing to object to the haste in which Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act, is being pushed through the Legislature. Your government went out of its way to seek input from all concerned over the past 18 months. In particular, we were pleased to cooperate with the..." -- and I can't read the member for Nanaimo's name into the record -- "...and subsequent input to the minister. In order to fulfil your government's commitment to consultation, we believe that we should have a reasonable amount of time to review the proposed legislation and to comment constructively. After all, this is a complex piece of legislation that has a major impact on people doing business and working in B.C. We urge you and your colleagues to slow the process, and take the time to hear from those who can offer constructive input."
That was sent to the Government House Leader.
As our mining critic has pointed out, it's interesting that we have a lot of structure coming forward in the Ministry of Mines. We have an entire process being set up there for mining assessment, in addition to what's being set up in Bill 32. From the perspective of our critic for mines and myself, we assumed that when the assessment process through the Mineral Act and through the Utilities Commission Act was repealed, that automatically meant that those bureaucratic structures were being taken apart and that we were going to have an amalgamation of everything under the Ministry of Environment. That's not true. The existing structures in the other ministries are going to stay in place. In fact, we have just learned from one of the Minister of Mines' publications that she is going to expand the assessment process through the Ministry of Mines so that there will be regional directors. As well as the main person, a new person has been appointed. In fact, it's a duplication. We also know that the Ministry of Forests has just set up a new committee structure, which has a super committee and subcommittees. We know that in the Ministry of Environment we have the protected-areas strategy committees and the CORE process. And we now have the Environmental Assessment Act. It's just an overwhelming amount of bureaucratization and legislation.
Even if we ended up in a fortunate situation where a project that went through Bill 32 went through a faster process and we ended up with a very good land use decision, we would still be very significantly impeded in terms of the amount of money spent in other ministries for exactly the same thing. Where is the ownership of good land use decisions going to rest? We've got CORE; we've got the Environmental Assessment Act; we've got the protected-areas strategy; we've got the mineral strategy; we've got the new committee on forestry. We're overburdened with these layers of committees, government and bureaucracy.
There seems to be adequate public consultation in many of those other areas. Why is it lacking in Bill 32? I don't understand that. Why would you set up a committee in Bill 32 that has so much power, and no public or industry input? That doesn't make sense to me. Why would you set up this great process in Bill 32 and still have everything else functioning? That doesn't make any sense either. It's interesting that we have Bill 32 on the one hand, and Environment and Forests are adding to their committees. We have the regional protected-areas strategy committees, regional ministries for environment and three regional committees of CORE, which will be expanded later on. We know that CORE has developed a comprehensive land use strategy and that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has separate talks and discussions.
Isn't there just one map of the province, or is that my mistake? How many different committees are we going to have cutting up the pie? What happens when the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Ministry of Forests,
[ Page 7142 ]
the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry of Environment and all of these people come and say, "Well, this is how we've cut up the pie," and it doesn't fit? Then what happens? What happens if something goes through Bill 32 and ends up with a thumbs-up, but CORE says no, or the protected-areas strategy says no, or the Aboriginal ministry says no, or the Ministry of Forests says no or the Ministry of Mines says no? Who is going to have the last word in land use decisions? I don't understand, and I've spent over 20 hours in debate on this in Environment estimates. I've also canvassed it in other ministries. I know that other critics in the opposition have canvassed this extensively, because we would like to know. It would help us in doing our job if we knew who has more control over the pie. If it's a joint committee.... If it's Bill 32, it means that Bill 32 is even more important than we thought it was. If it's CORE, then it means that Bill 32 falls within the purview of CORE. Where's the structure? I don't know.
If the government says that it's evolving a structure, why are all of these people being hired into the ministries before the structure is in place? How can any member of the public know where they should go with their proposal? To give an example, I was in the leader's riding some time ago, and in Powell River I met a large committee of stakeholders. There were about 32 people at the table: industry, the public, environmental groups, media -- basically every group you could think of. They said: "Where do we go? We've got it. We've spent five years, and we've got an integrated resource management plan. Do we take it to CORE?" There was a representative from CORE, and she said: "No, not CORE." I guess it would come under Bill 32. But if it comes under Bill 32, what happens when they're finished with it if it happens to fall within the protected-areas strategy map, which we know isn't going to be reporting out for another eight years? What are we going to have? We know that Blue Lead Creek is being clearcut, yet it's in the protected-areas study strategy. Why?
This is baffling to me. As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and leader of the party said earlier, if there are rules then we can understand. But if we're paying lip service to rules, and when it comes down to the actual land use decision nobody knows what the rules will finally be.... For example, what happens if eight years from now, when the protected-areas strategy reports on Blue Lead Creek, they say, "This is a valuable ecosystem; don't touch it," and it has already been clearcut? I don't understand how we can have any comfort with a logical approach to land use with that kind of hodgepodge decision-making. Meanwhile, as the Mines critic has mentioned a number of times with regard to what is going on in his ministry, more and more layers of bureaucracy are being added, yet investor confidence has never been lower. I can't remember when investor confidence was so low. There are great prospects elsewhere, so they're not going to bother with us. The mineral strategy that was supposed to come forward has not even been drafted yet. They haven't even started the discussion on it; yet it's been announced with great fanfare.
That gets to the point of the Environmental Assessment Act. For example, we have an Environmental Assessment Act that says, "If you want your mine developed, bring it to us," but a Minister of Mines is saying: "We've got a mineral strategy in place; we've got a committee and there are regional committees or reps. Here's the process; bring it to us." Then someone in the Ministry of Forests says: "You can't put a mine there because I've got a forest licence there." And an environmental group says: "Wait a minute. That's in the protected-areas strategy."
I think we need some serious discussion about where the government is going. Bill 32 is only one step toward what they're trying to do. I'll say this as generously as I can. I think the intentions are good in terms of wanting to be responsible, but in terms of making provisions for responsible land use decision-making, it is at the point of absurdity. We're being overwhelmed with inanities and inertia.
Hon. Speaker, seeing the time, I move adjournment of the debate until later today.
Motion approved.
E. Barnes: Hon. Speaker, before you announce the actual recess, and if it's permissible, I'd like to ask the House if I could have leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
E. Barnes: I'd just like to say that my mother, who is from Los Angeles, and my wife, Janet, are with us today. This is very special for me, because just a little over two months ago my mom was in hospital faced with a life-threatening operation. I'm very happy to report that her operation was more than a success and here she is, taking a break from that horrible weather in Los Angeles and enjoying some truly good weather in beautiful British Columbia. At 84 years of age, I think you can appreciate that she's doing pretty well. I'd like the House to make her welcome. I should say that her name is not Barnes; it's Mrs. Anne Boullon.
Hon. T. Perry: I would also like to extend very special greetings to Mrs. Anne Boullon, if I might have leave from hon. members.
Leave granted.
Hon. T. Perry: Finally, after some 21 years, we know who is responsible for the individual who has caused so much trouble in this House, and we are delighted to see his mother here. On behalf of all hon. members, I join in making her most welcome.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for five minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:58 p.m
[ Page 7143 ]
The House resumed at 6:03 p.m.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call continuation of Committee of Supply A to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and continuation of debate on the amendment in second reading of Bill 32.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
(continued)
On the amendment.
J. Tyabji: The point the opposition wants to make is that we feel this government should take note of the fact that this legislation is of too great a magnitude to come before the House in such a short period of time. I urge the government to accept the hoist motion, and understand that the opposition puts it forward in a very constructive way. We would be happy to assist in the public consultation process that would result from the hoist motion being followed through on.
J. Dalton: I rise to support this hoist motion and speak against Bill 32. Many things can be said about this bill, which is flawed in some way or another, but I will, in particular, address my remarks to the reasons the opposition has put this hoist motion forward and why we would like the House to seriously consider that the bill not be brought back for six months so that further consultation can take place.
I say that because when we look at the very brief history of this bill that is before us today, as far as the House proceedings are concerned, we see it was introduced in this House on June 4. I have in front of me the news release and an accompanying letter, which are both dated June 4. I think these are somewhat edifying because they certainly indicate the haste with which this government wants this bill put through the House, even though the statements in the release and the letter are contradictory to this.
In the release that came out of the minister's office on June 4, he states that he welcomes comments from all interested parties before the Legislature completes its debate on the bill. That's rather interesting when you consider that this bill went to second reading on June 10, six days later. Of course today is June 14, and we are back on the continuation of second reading.
In addition to the news release, as I commented on that same day, June 4, when this bill was introduced to the House, the minister sent out an accompanying letter that starts off: "Dear Participant in the Reform of Environmental Assessment." Then the minister goes on to state that he's seeking further input from the public on the proposed legislation.
There is obviously a certain hypocrisy here for the Minister of Environment to introduce a very important bill such as Bill 32 to this House on June 4, and six days later have it on the agenda for second reading. How can anyone, in all honesty, hon. Speaker, have the opportunity to effectively or in any other way react to the bill and then get back to the minister with the very input that he is allegedly seeking? Obviously that is not happening, and that's why we are proposing the six-month hoist. We would not like this bill to be passed through the House at this time.
The whole process is very flawed, when you consider the importance of the bill and the undue haste -- the almost obscene haste -- with which the bill has been put forward. I'm also intrigued by some of the other wording we find in both the accompanying letter of June 4 and the news release. For example, the minister tells us that certainty, openness and efficiency are key objectives to this legislation. If the ministry and the government truly believe that, I would like to think that they would be true to their word and give ample opportunity for public reaction.
In her remarks that preceded mine, the member for Okanagan East read a letter from the Business Council of B.C. into the record. That response is very appropriate. It is the type of reaction that this government should be listening to, not going through the motions. Quite frankly, that's all they are doing. When they introduce a bill and six days later it's on the agenda for second reading, no one in his or her right mind can tell me that the bill has been properly vetted by the public.
The negative comments from the Business Council of B.C., as one example, should be listened to and heeded. It is very important that all affected parties have the opportunity to properly examine this bill. That's what this government promised in the news release and the covering letter, but those promises are not being heeded. In fact, some of the terminology in the release and the letter reminds me of some of the statements in the first throne speech of this government a year and more ago. "Open and honest government" is one of the phrases that comes to mind. Now we're being told about certainty, openness and efficiency. Quite frankly, hon. Speaker, those words ring very hollow in light of the undue haste with which this bill has been put forward. That's certainly my main concern when I speak in favour of the hoist motion: this process has to be slowed down for the proper and effective public consultation that was promised, which we are not seeing in this process.
I have other concerns with the bill as well. Again, these would reinforce my support of the hoist motion. For example, we do not know what the very significant regulations will be, which have yet to be brought forward and passed before Bill 32 becomes law, even if we put it through the House fairly soon. For example, one provision in part 2 of the bill states that regulations may be prescribed dealing with a reviewable project. Well, we don't know what those are. I don't know how anyone can in all honesty vote in favour of legislation of such significant impact without knowing what the guidelines and the actual regulations will be.
I don't think anyone in this House would be so foolish as to sign a blank cheque, but that's what this government is asking of us. I can assure you that this member is not going to do so, and no member of this opposition is going to do so. The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast suggests that the government members opposite are prepared to do so. That may be, but I would like to think that the government members are not so foolish as to put their endorsement on this
[ Page 7144 ]
very important piece of legislation without some fairly precise details of what is to be contained in it.
The absence of regulations is very serious. A six-month hoist, of course, would give ample opportunity for those regulations to be worked on and brought forward, so that we in this House would have some comfort, when and if this bill comes back before us, that it can be properly examined and debated. If the government can convince this side that it should be supported, then we will certainly do so at that point in time. But we're not going to support it now; that would be unacceptable.
What else do we see in this bill? We see a growing bureaucracy. Perhaps the government would suggest that some of the things this bill implements are warranted. But when I see in part 3 the creation of an environmental assessment board and in part 4 of an environmental assessment office with an executive director who has a lot of authority that he or she can delegate, those things disturb me. Again, I think those very unknown, dangerous elements have to be properly examined. A six-month hoist would go a long way toward giving that opportunity for further examination.
I know for a fact that the investment community and our primary industries are very concerned about the implications of this bill, and they would like to have the opportunity for further examination. But when we have a growing bureaucracy without any proper guidelines, an absence of regulations and an absence of proper consultation, which flies in the face of what this government promised, the opposition has to ask them to slow down the process. What's the rush? I guess we could be cynical and say that the rush is due to the fact that this government has some other agenda in mind. It's not just the fact that we have concerns about the content of the bill; it is our obligation as the opposition to slow down the process, and that is the purpose of our hoist motion.
[6:15]
As I stated earlier, no one in this opposition is prepared to sign a blank cheque to this government for something as important as Bill 32. I speak in favour of the hoist motion. I ask all members to seriously consider the implications of Bill 32. I invite all members to do the correct thing in this context and vote in favour of the hoist motion, so that this bill will not be rushed through and given undue authority, when no one in this House truly knows what that authority will be in the long run.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. Part of the reason has to do with the types of comments I've had from constituents. I would like to read a letter into the record, which states:
"I am writing to object to the haste in which Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act, is being pushed through the Legislature. Your government went out of its way to seek input from all concerned over the past 18 months. In particular, we were pleased to cooperate with the Lovick review, the member for Nanaimo, and subsequent input to the minister. In order to fulfil your government's commitment to consultation, we believe that we should have a reasonable amount of time to review the proposed legislation and to comment constructively. After all, this is a complex piece of legislation that has a major impact on people doing business and working in British Columbia."
I would also like to read into the record an item from the Brundtland commission: "Those responsible for managing natural resources and protecting the environment are institutionally separated from those responsible for managing the economy. The real world of interlocked economic and ecological systems will not change." The policies and institution must change.
Here we have a major piece of legislation being brought forward in the Legislature with a great deal of haste. We acknowledge that the member for Nanaimo took some 18 months accumulating the information required for this bill. It is a massive and very complex bill. It has many implications for the environment and the economy of the province. The reality is that there is much vagueness associated with this legislation, in marked contrast to the statements by the Minister of Environment when he made his news release and tabled the legislation. The minister noted: "The government has established certainty, openness and efficiency as key objectives for this reformed approach to environmental assessment" -- that sounds good -- "by establishing a clearly defined process and specifying time frames for critical stages of the processes. The legislation will increase certainty for all participants."
I've listened to second reading debate on the philosophy and principles of this bill. I don't see any of that certainty established. As a matter of fact, all I see is a vagueness and an expansiveness that leaves a great deal of uncertainty out there. I'm confident that it's not in the best interests of the government; I'm confident that it's not in the best interests of the environment; and I'm very confident that it's not in the best interests of the economy of the province and jobs for people. This concern has not been mitigated with the type of debate that has gone on.
I was very pleased to hear some of the philosophical reasons -- and some of the debate that tends to go on in government caucus and perhaps in cabinet -- for bringing this type of legislation forward, when the member for Nelson-Creston stood up and identified the real enemy of the people of British Columbia as the cowboy capitalists. That's probably the basic tenor of the conversation that takes place in government caucus. We have a government that is owned by and captive of the unions in the province. It is a government with an agenda but not the real agenda, that comes out with environmental assessment legislation to get those entrepreneurs, be they small business or large, who provide the cash flow, the jobs and the strong economy in the province. The government is painting all of them with the same brush and identifying them as cowboy capitalists. There has to be something fundamentally wrong when a government in power uses such terms to paint a picture and then develops this type of legislation, which is clearly punitive and will hurt the cowboy capitalists. In turn, it will hurt government revenues and the opportunity for jobs in B.C.
As I have stated, there is a great deal of concern with the vagueness and latitude in this particular bill. Not
[ Page 7145 ]
only does it appear prudent to support the hoist motion, but the reality is that there's no intention to proclaim this legislation for some time. It is just as obvious that it is incumbent upon the government to do what it has stated it will do. Prior to bringing in the regulations it will again go out and talk to people about the specifics of the regulations. If we're going to do all of that, it seems to me that at this point we're simply spinning our wheels. We're entering a great debate on legislation that is vague. All of us in the Legislature recognize that the regulations that will accompany this legislation are integral to the intent and the effect of this expansive legislative package. With the government's commitment to once again go out and meet the people in the province -- individuals, communities, corporations, other levels of government -- about the implications of this bill, it seems patently obvious that the hoist motion has to have the support of this Legislature.
All members in this Legislature have to see the obvious. The government has made a commitment. The time element in this particular debate is not a critical issue; we have only half the picture. We're being asked to debate and support half of the picture, which is the legislative package. But because of the peculiar nature of this legislative package, it is imperative that the regulations accompanying this package be brought forward at the same time, so that the people of B.C. can see all aspects of the legislation and fully comprehend the effects. Then they can make a decision based on objective facts rather than on intents. I can't take a great deal of comfort from the fact that the legislation was developed and influenced by the results of consultations led by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Environment, the member for Nanaimo. It appears to me that a substantial amount of ideology is brought into this specific bill.
When we take an issue as apolitical and important as the environment is to the people of this province -- again I enunciate that the motto of this province is "splendour undiminished" -- and when we recognize the importance we place on the environment in British Columbia, it appears to be totally wrong to reduce the impact of what has the potential of being good, solid environmental legislation by combining a number of other elements with it -- social, cultural and heritage concerns -- under the global cap of environmental concerns. The bill is so expansive in that phraseology that not one project in the province will not come under the scrutiny of this legislation.
I have heard a great deal on the philosophy and principles of this bill in second reading debate, and I have to address them in view of my support for the hoist motion. This is just patchwork legislation that attends to environmental assessment concerns. There are a variety of concerns; it depends on what those specific concerns are and how they relate to the specific project.
The federal environment assessment and review process is a very major process in which the province has participated on a number of occasions. It is effective. It takes into account all sorts of physical and biological aspects of development proposals -- air, land, water, plants, animals and people. It is a broad scope under the environmental review process of the federal government. It is supported and is very comprehensive and strong legislation, so we utilize it. Where the federal environment assessment and review process has not been utilized, the major project review legislation already in place in British Columbia has worked very effectively.
A great deal of consultative work has to be done in the development of the regulations. I am confident that the Minister of Environment recognizes and understands the amount of work that has to be done with respect to the regulations in this particular package. At the present time it would be ludicrous for the Legislature to support the passage of this legislation without the other elements being addressed and fulfilled. The public has the right -- and the government has the responsibility to enable the public -- to see the type of legislation they are bringing forward. If the public supports this legislation, so be it. But let them support it on a comprehensive basis, where they have the opportunity to assess the legislation.
It was tabled in the House last week. The public has not had an opportunity to be aware of the legislative aspect of this, so it's wrong to force this through the Legislature. On the whole, if the public is going to have a comprehensive understanding of this, they have to be able to look at the regulations as well as the legislation. Those two elements will form the complete package. It may be good; it may not be good. It may meet with the support and approval of the public at large; it may not do so. But if the government is concerned with representing the interests of all the people of the province on a major piece of legislation, which has an impact that will spread throughout the province, then the government should certainly pick up their area of responsibility. In order to be truly representative and responsible, they should allow the public the opportunity to assess it. It will impact everyone in my constituency -- be they private homeowners, entrepreneurs or people in the labour force. Everyone has the potential to be impacted.
The type of latitude and power available to the boards and offices created by this is very strong and very great indeed. It might be used wisely, but then again we often see an abuse of power and privilege. There is a great deal of valid concern with respect to that. There are challenges and remedies available under the present legislative framework.
The development at Bamberton is an example of something that should be looked at and assessed by this government. Unfortunately, there is a reluctance to look at that because of the union involvement in that development. This legislation isn't going to encourage the government to do that, because this government is considered to be owned by the unions. The union members themselves -- or certainly the hierarchy -- feel that the government is owned by the unions. So what is this going to do for an apolitical environmental assessment impact study? Not a great deal, hon. Speaker. Fundamentally, the rule of law and order has to be upheld throughout the province of B.C. We have
[ Page 7146 ]
in this case, and in the case of Bamberton, a situation that -- because of allegiances and alliances -- clearly evades scrutiny by the government.
[6:30]
Here too there is concern about the nature of the area that this legislation can impact. For example, a good question is whether it will impact development on traditional aboriginal lands. All of this is in a state of flux. Altogether too many questions that really demand answers have been created by the presentation of this legislation. They demand compelling, comprehensive, objective answers. Those answers are not available in the act. The legislation doesn't provide the answers. It is vague and expansive, and no project criteria have been developed. It is not as if we're just going to look at major projects here; we're going to look at everything. Even beyond this type of expansiveness, we see that cabinet and the Minister of Environment can demand that any project be considered, over and above any definition of project criteria.
What will it do? It will produce a tremendous increase in cost. In the private sector, time is not a friend of anyone trying to do or accomplish anything. In the public sector, it's another thing. If you can procrastinate or deflect or defer, so much the better. Then nothing hangs on you, your life goes on in its uneventful way, and the paycheque comes as regularly as clockwork. But in the real world -- the strength of the economy, which has allowed B.C. to be the fine place that it is -- time is money. There is money in interest costs, which go on and on. There is money spent combatting legislation which does not enhance or address environmental concerns, because those concerns are all addressed in existing legislation. There is the uncertainty and the cost of the variability of markets.
If we're going to be responsive, if we're going to be competitive.... The global world is shrinking. We all know, simply by recognizing it from a spaceship, the small and fragile planet Earth. That brought it home clearly. The economic world is also shrinking. We're not isolated. We're not immune to what happens in the rest of the world; we're active participants. In order to participate and to create jobs in a strong economy, we have to be competitive. When this government talks about jobs, and the need for jobs in the province, I wish that they really understood. They simply don't get it, but all of the delays that they bring in through legislation negate the opportunity for jobs and job creation.
There is no certainty, no process and no surety in this particular legislative package. The reality is that virtually everything that government has done -- and this bill is no exception -- deters anyone from expanding or making new capital investment in the province. We can't have that continue. We're going to lose the momentum. We're going to lose not only the standard of living but also the quality of life that we enjoy in British Columbia. The quality of life is directly dependent on the quality of our environment. There is not one nation, not one jurisdiction, anywhere in the world that can boast a fine quality of environment without a commensurate quality and strength of economy.
If you look at Third World countries, you will see environmental degradation and devastation. You can look at the Soviet economy and the countries where you can clearly see and record what has happened. You find the same thing: the economy is devastated and pollution is rampant. I have real concerns with that. I'm trying to point out, again, that in the Brundtland commission they recognized that there had to be a reconciliation of opposites. There has to be a reconciliation of opposites. This legislation doesn't even attempt to do that. It is focused on, and gets on the bandwagon of, some pretty hard environmentalist legislation, in which all sorts of resources and weaponry are brought to bear.
The reality is that business people and all people are open to consultation. All people are responsible and want to strive to do the right thing. You don't need a sledgehammer to swat a fly. That's precisely what this legislation is doing at the present time. You've got incredible strength and authority in this legislation. Very little of it is really required or desirable, and the government doesn't understand that. It will impose fear. You'll find that the hon. Minister of Social Services will continue to acquire more and more people on the welfare rolls, because more and more people will go onto the unemployment rolls -- until unemployment insurance runs out. Surely this government recognizes that it has a responsibility to address the opposites and meld them together in a form of consensus that everyone can respect and appreciate.
I stand in firm support of the hoist motion; any thinking legislator in this Legislature will also stand in firm support of the hoist motion. I would not be surprised -- except for party discipline -- if the Minister of Environment himself did not hesitate to support the hoist motion. I know the Minister of Environment; I know his commitment, and I know that he wants to bring down the best possible legislation. But if this legislation is being pushed through the Legislature simply to keep face, then it's misdirected. We have incumbent responsibility in the Legislature to try to bring the best-quality legislation package forward.
This is a very large package of very complex legislation. The goal is noble, and nobody will detract from that goal. But I suggest that the journey to that goal is very flawed. It's like running a minefield. The government should look at this in a responsible manner. The continued role of government should be to take the regulatory package that will accompany this out to the people and allow them to have a period of time. Six months is reasonable. Nothing earth-shattering will occur if this legislation is delayed for six months. Allow the people to become informed. If they support the government's legislation, so be it. I respect the will of the people, but I respect the informed will of the people.
When government wants to rush through a very large and complex act that was only presented to the House a few short days ago, I have a great deal of concern, as all British Columbians should have, with the hidden agenda behind this legislation. If the hidden agenda behind this legislation is just to get after those
[ Page 7147 ]
capitalist cowboys -- as the government caucus sees anyone that does anything in the province -- then the legislation is exceedingly flawed by its initial purpose. I say shame to the government, shame to the ministers and shame to all of those who support the legislation.
[6:45]
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call the vote on the amendment. I will read the amendment: that the motion for second reading of Bill 32 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefore the words "six months hence."
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 19 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Reid |
|
Gingell |
Dalton |
Wilson |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
|
De Jong |
Neufeld |
Fox |
|
Symons |
Tanner |
Hurd |
|
Anderson |
Jarvis |
K. Jones |
| Tyabji | ||
| NAYS -- 31 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Edwards |
Cashore |
Barlee |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Lali |
|
Conroy |
Miller |
Hagen |
|
Gabelmann |
Clark |
Cull |
|
Zirnhelt |
Blencoe |
Barnes |
|
B. Jones |
Lovick |
Ramsey |
|
Pullinger |
Evans |
Doyle |
|
Streifel |
Lord |
Randall |
|
Garden |
Kasper |
Brewin |
| Janssen | ||
On the main motion.
R. Neufeld: It must be past supper. The opposition is even clapping for me.
I rise not to speak in support of Bill 32, but to oppose it. I know that surprises some members of the government, but I don't think I can bring myself to support an act such as this. In fact, I think Bill 32, much as the one that died on the order paper last year.... That's probably exactly what should happen with this bill. It should die on the order paper.
I want to preface my remarks by saying that I am as concerned about the environment as all members of this House are.
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: It's interesting that we have the member for Cariboo North heckling me about not caring about the environment. That's absolutely amazing. I don't mind heckling, but he should heckle when heckling should be done -- because that's not correct. I stand by my words. I am concerned about the environment, and I am sure that all members of my caucus are as concerned about the environment as I am. In fact, one of our members is a past Minister of Environment and handled that portfolio very well. Our party is concerned about and stands firmly behind the environment.
But we're also concerned about jobs. When you talk about party philosophy, the NDP, the socialist party, always talks about itself as the only party concerned about jobs. But I and all members of our caucus are concerned about jobs. In fact, when I go around the province, I find that one of the largest issues on people's minds is jobs. People are also very concerned about taxation in this province. They need jobs to pay taxes. The present government seems to think that everyone is wealthy and that they can continue raising taxes. But those people who are concerned about jobs and high taxation are also concerned about the environment. In general terms people are concerned about the environment, though they may differ from region to region, which is understandable. In my region people have different concerns about the environment than in the Kootenays.
The member for Nanaimo spent quite a while going around the province, doing what the NDP calls consultation with everyone and bringing forward in a unified voice how the people felt about the environment. When he spoke to second reading, he was very surprised that anyone would be concerned about this bill. He thought he had done everything that had to be done and brought forward what everybody in British Columbia had said to him. Well, a lot of people out there don't agree with what the member for Nanaimo brought forward.
During his speech on second reading, the member for Nanaimo talked about terrible forest practices and said that we are a Brazil of the north. He talked about past mining practices that were terrible. I take exception to that. I'm not going to say that all the practices for those many years were as we think they should be today. But I can tell you that 20 or 30 years from now the people standing here will be saying: "I wonder why, 20 or 30 years ago, they did things the way they did." Technology changes, and social values and people change. We all have to live with that. So I don't believe it when he says in the House: "Everything was so terrible before. But oh, my goodness, here is the godsend! I'm going to do something here that will right all the wrongs, and from now on we will be doing it the correct way."
They bring forward 108 sections of a bill to deal with the environment that is really just a shell, because none of the regulations are in place yet. Nobody knows what the regulations are going to be. All we have is a shell, and a lot of it scares a lot of people. It scares industry and anyone in business. Anyone that is thinking about an entrepreneurial start of any kind is afraid of what this bill will do, because it's not complete. But what they do read into it is serious, and they're concerned about it. We have members talk about mining, the oil industry and forestry as all being suspected of acts that are not aboveboard. That's not the way to get consensus in the Legislature; that's not how to convince people to do things differently. All it does is fuel the extreme environmentalists into saying: "Yes, everything is
[ Page 7148 ]
wrong in British Columbia." As the minister's report said awhile ago, we can stack our environment up against anybody. The environment of British Columbia is in very good shape. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't see what we can do to make it better, because we can always try to make it better. There's nothing wrong with that.
But there is fear from industry and from individuals. It starts with industry. We have the protected-areas strategy, the Environmental Assessment Act and a number of hurdles that industry and business have to go through. They're getting harder to get across. There are more sections and things in legislation that only large corporations seem to be able to handle. But this will affect the smaller corporations and businesses -- or even a person building a house, as the member who spoke before me said. It'll touch every one of us in this province; it'll touch all of us in different ways. The person who thought that he or she was going to get a job working in a mine such as Windy Craggy, for instance, or who was looking forward to getting back to work in the mine after Cassiar was shut down -- maybe somebody in Vancouver would just love to go back to work again in that country -- can see how they're going to be touched by some of this legislation, because they may not have that job, and they'll be on unemployment insurance.
Forestry supplies about three out of five to eight jobs in the province. That's what drives the province. That's what makes services available to us, and we have some of the best services in Canada. I certainly don't want to see us losing them. But if we're not careful about what regulations and bills we continue to bring forward, we're going to totally stymie growth. It's going to stop.
Mining is leaving. We see a reduction in annual allowable cuts around the province. Those are all jobs -- real, tangible and well-paying jobs. Most of them are in the north, the interior and the Kootenays, away from the lower mainland. We get so worked up when we're in Victoria and Vancouver. We see all kinds of activity going on and think that British Columbia's economy is really booming. It may be booming in Vancouver and Victoria where they are building houses, but I tell you it's not booming like that in some other areas of British Columbia. People need jobs. They need to retain those jobs, and they need some security. When I say that they want the security of those jobs, it's not that they don't give a hoot about the environment -- because they do. They care very much about the environment -- the same as all of us. But they want to have some assurance of a job so that they can raise their family the way that's been done for so long.
As governments, we continually meddle. I don't care what government it is, but we don't seem to be happy unless we're meddling in everything that goes on in the whole province and country. I guess at one time there were lots of jobs around and maybe we didn't notice it as much, but there are not a lot of jobs around anymore. Anyone with young people in their family who are out looking for jobs right now -- and I have a few of them -- knows that they're hard to come by, especially well-paying jobs. Jobs for which a low salary is being paid are not going to replace the high-paying jobs in the resource industries. They're not going to help communities in the north. Simply bulldozing them down, like we did with Cassiar, is not the answer.
J. Beattie: What about Clayoquot?
R. Neufeld: The member asks about Clayoquot. It's interesting to note that the minister has not acted on Clayoquot. Cabinet has made a decision on what they're going to do, but they haven't approved any more cutting permits. This government sits absolutely idle, watching the world go by.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I speak to Bill 32. We should be encouraging growth and jobs. It's interesting to note that when we were questioning the Minister of Economic Development in the House about where jobs had been created in British Columbia -- because he talked about the billions of dollars of investment in British Columbia -- one was a plywood plant that had been built quite a number of years ago, and because the price of lumber was up, it was going back to work; and I think the other was a wheel plant. But the minister had a hard time coming up with those two. In the meantime, we're losing real jobs out there.
[7:00]
It may be fine in Victoria and Vancouver; there may be lots of jobs in those areas. But as I've said many times, in the northern part of British Columbia where I come from, jobs are getting pretty scarce. When jobs get scarce in our resource-based industries in the north and in the interior, the province's revenues drop. That's becoming very evident. We have a government that has tabled two of the largest deficits in British Columbia's history. They've increased the total government debt by $6.4 billion in two years, up 33 percent. They ought to be catching on pretty soon that they have to deal with both the environment and jobs; they can't just kill the jobs. This bill is another attempt by this government to kill any type of investment in the north, out there in the hinterlands.
It's not all that many years ago when people said: "Do you live up north? You can live there. I don't want that country; you can have it." All of a sudden we have a protected-areas strategy that zeroes in on all kinds of little places around the north where activity has been taking place for years. People have been paying attention to the environment, and all of a sudden everyone down south is interested in what's going on in the north. All of a sudden they want part of it, because they want to maintain miles and miles of wilderness and miles and miles of river, such as the Tat. "You can't put a bridge across it, because when I'm going down there in my raft, I might see a bridge." Well, my goodness, when that person is going down there on their raft and it turns upside down and they half drown and need to be hauled back to town and be looked after, guess how that's done? It's done through revenue from the province, from the resource industries that bridge was going to, which supply the hospital and the ambulance services in order for that person to be looked
[ Page 7149 ]
after. That's what we have to be careful about. We can't continue to put that kind of investment down in this province, or we're going to be in an awful lot of trouble.
We have a bill with 108 sections, and it was introduced in this House just a week ago. We don't have the regulations for it yet. This is just a shell; this is just part of it. "Trust me." I've heard that before, as did all the people in British Columbia during the election. They said: "Trust us. We have about 49 promises, and we'll keep them all." They haven't kept one yet, so nobody is going to trust them anymore. Why do they think we're standing up here and speaking against every bill they bring forward? How can we trust them? The mining industry.... The member for Nanaimo, who brought forward this bill and who went around the province and did all the consulting, said that industry was happy with it: "They wanted this. I did it for industry." But I will read to you from a mining newsletter: "The unified message was one of frustration with the tangled processes, the endless discussions and meetings and seeming lack of political and public concern about the evident fate of the minerals industry in British Columbia." That's exactly where we're at. It's no wonder, when we continue to bring this forward and when we bring forward things like last year's Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act, Bill 32, which just happens to have the same number as this. I wonder if that isn't just a little message for the member for Nanaimo that this could die on the order paper also. I hope that it will, and I think there are a lot of people out there that hope it will too.
We talked about the process a little bit, and I touched very lightly on the fact that we have the shell but no regulations, and that most of the bill will be taken care of by regulations. Ministry staff tell us that it will probably be a year before the regulations are in place, and here we are passing this bill. What's the point of having the bill? We already have a major process review in place in British Columbia that could take care of what's happening in the environment until they get the regulations together and then bring them forward all at once, so that the people of British Columbia understand what they have and so that industry understands what they have.
This government is just great at trying to confuse everybody. They talk about creating jobs; the only thing they've created is 2,800 jobs in the public sector. We can't continue just to increase jobs in the public sector. Somebody has to pay for them. There has to be a taxpayer out there. There has to be an industry out there so we can get the revenue to pay for those 2,800 people.
If we go a little further, it mentions public access. This bill creates a project registry, where everything will be registered. One thing this government is great at is paperwork -- trying to create a few more jobs in the public sector, I guess. I wonder how many it will be next year. The board and the office together will direct up to four different stages of public consultation in the project approval process -- and that's just in this part of it. That's just in the shell of it, because we don't have the regulations yet. This thing could triple in size by the time we get the regulations, and baffle everyone. In fact, what it will do.... The government says that they want to encourage public participation, public discussion, public involvement, but they've made it so difficult that the average person in the public can't keep up to it. In fact, it's gotten to be so difficult that most industry can't keep up to it anymore, and that's what they're telling us.
I heard a member -- I forget which one -- from the Liberal Party read out a letter, saying: "We're confused. There is so much going on. There are so many different agencies. We don't know who to go to anymore." One of our members read out much the same letter. We continue to baffle them with paperwork, and there are no regulations yet. That's going to come; I can hardly wait to see what happens there. As I said, only well-financed individuals will be able to pursue the Environmental Assessment Act to find out what's going on in their particular area or in their areas of concern.
One other thing that I think should concern all of us -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast brought it up -- is the issue of native involvement on the board. I feel the same way that he does. In my constituency we have Treaty 8. I'm not trying to say that the native population shouldn't have a say. I'm not trying to be negative about it, but if natives are specifically appointed to a board that makes decisions on both non-traditional and traditional land, but no one else can make decisions about traditional land, you're asking for a time bomb. In that section alone, this bill is a time bomb. At some point that time bomb is going to explode, because the native population and the rest of the people in British Columbia are going to come to a point where they're not going to stand it anymore. It's going to create more of a problem than any of us want, or maybe a lot more problems than any of us can deal with. But it's going to come.
Bureaucracy: we will have an executive director who reports directly to the minister. I assume that will be an appointment that would have some political ties to it. The member for Nelson-Creston talked so eloquently about backroom deals, and that the real language of what's going on is what everybody should be aware of. This executive director will definitely be appointed by cabinet. Who do you think that's going to be -- Brian Mulroney? I doubt it.
An Hon. Member: Maybe Vicky Husband.
R. Neufeld: I don't know, but it will definitely be according to the political will. The Ministry of Energy is in the House listening to the debate, and she knows exactly what I'm talking about, because we know what happened with the Energy Council -- that's how that chair was chosen. I cannot accept that either. If the government is going to pass legislation against the will of the rest, maybe they should be advertising this job all across Canada like they did with all the other jobs.
We talk about an environmental assessment office with 20 people employed, and we figure that is going to cost in excess of $4 million a year by the time the offices are put in place with the salaries and benefits that go along with it -- another small bureaucracy to go through. That wouldn't be so bad, I guess, if we were
[ Page 7150 ]
going to eliminate those other bureaucracies from the other ministries that deal with the environment. We can't do that either. We're going to keep those in place so that the ministers in those respective ministries can continue to baffle everyone with paperwork, regulations and fees. It's just astronomical, how it goes.
We talked about fees, this government's legislation and regulations in the mining industry and how they affected the mining industry in the last year and a half was listed. It is estimated that the NDP government has cost the mining industry another $15 million. Mines are closing down right now that are going to lay people off in the fall because of the worldwide price of ore. We know that's a big part of the problem, but along with it are all the fees and increases and taxes and regulations and environmental assessments. If the government knows that the price of ore has a large effect on whether the mining industry keeps working, then the least they can do is think: "Maybe we shouldn't be charging so much for some of these things. Maybe we shouldn't be increasing taxation, because that's also going to affect their bottom line." They just don't get it. At some point they're going to have to wake up.
[7:15]
Earlier the member for Nelson-Creston, who I wish was here, talked about how this is going to eliminate backroom deals and buying off, which is how things were done in B.C. "Who do I have to slip dollars to? Which party do I have to support?" I'm not sure who he was talking about. I think he was pointing a finger at the opposition parties, but I'm not exactly sure. I find it rather repulsive that a member of this Legislature would get up and talk like that. You can bet he wouldn't go out in the hallway and talk to the press that way. He knows better, because it's not right. He took great exception to a remark made by the member from Kelowna about who owned what party. The inference, of course, was that the Social Credit Party was owned by big business. We read the papers and see articles written about parties, and the member from Kelowna talked about who owned the NDP. We didn't sit around in a caucus meeting and say: "The labour unions own the NDP." We didn't dream that up; we read it daily. We read it from people who are in the union.
I just want to read a quick little paragraph to back that up: "National CUPE president Judy Darcy said the NDP government belongs to the unions and told the protestors the Educational Programs Continuation Act that has been used to send striking Vancouver and Surrey schoolteachers back to the classrooms must be repealed." It wasn't me or my party that said that; it was the president of one of the unions. That member should read the papers once in a while and he would see what some of those people are saying. I guess what he was referring to in his speeches about buying off and dealing in the back rooms was his own party, his own cabinet and his own backbenchers.
I see that my time has expired. I just want to say that there must be a process. We agree that there has to be a process, but there has to be more than just a shell. The regulations have to come with it.
R. Chisholm: I rise in opposition to Bill 32, like the rest of the Liberal caucus. It's unfortunate that I have to rise, because I think the government might be on the right track. The only problem is that they didn't go far enough. They went out for discussions with the general population before producing this bill, but they do not want to go out to the public after producing it to see if this is what the public would like. They have produced a bill that has no regulations. As I've heard here tonight, it's like a blank cheque. Unfortunately, I guess the people are not too trusting of the government at this point, so it behooves them to take this document out to the public so that they can have their input.
I'll read a letter into the record that was written by Jerry L. Lampert of the Business Council of B.C. He's very emphatic about how he feels about this bill. He gives compliments where they are due, and in ending this letter he tells them where they went wrong. It states:
"I am writing to object to the haste in which Bill 32, the Environmental Assessment Act, is being pushed through the Legislature. Your government went out of its way to seek input from all concerned over the past 18 months. In particular, we were pleased to cooperate with the Lovick review and subsequent input to the minister. In order to fulfill your government's commitment to consultation, we believe that we should have a reasonable amount of time to review the proposed legislation and comment constructively. After all, this is a complex piece of legislation that has a major impact on people doing business and working in British Columbia. We urge you and your colleagues to slow the process and take the time to hear from those who can offer constructive input."
Those are very well-reasoned words. Why take 18 months to produce this report and bill, and then table the bill and debate it six days later? Why the urgent rush? Why not go back out, consult and find out what the people think about this and whether they want to give this government a blank cheque?
Hon. Speaker, there are some things that are wrong in this bill. You've heard them from all the various speakers. The speaker before me went through them piece by piece. We have a government that's going to increase FTEs and the bureaucracy, and spend $4 million. This government has to learn that it must decrease the bureaucracy. They've got to take that money and invest it in wealth-generating industries such as mining and forestry to help pay the taxes for social services. This government has to learn they have to invest before they can reap the rewards. They have yet to learn this. This has been stated over the last 19 months that they've been in government.
People have been talking about other things: how will this affect the aboriginal involvement? What is the impact? Nobody has thought about this. Where is this going to lead us? Are we going to be able to handle it? Another thing we have heard is that jobs will not be coming to this province and that as long as we put political interference and red tape into the system, investment is going to stay away. Investment happens to be jobs; jobs cannot be created by governments with FTEs. They're non-constructive jobs. We need jobs that
[ Page 7151 ]
will create more jobs and pay for the bureaucracy and social services.
This new act has no grounds for appeal. There's nowhere for anybody to go under this act. There's no compensation. Where does a person go when they've been unjustly used by this act or by the minister when he's putting this act into place? Nowhere. We have an executive director of the Environmental Assessment Board who will be the most powerful OIC appointment in the province. He controls virtually all of the economic development in the province. He has a yea or nay-say on every new and ongoing project and business.
The fees for these assessments and investigations will be borne by the people who have the projects. The person in this job will have power equal to that of a minister. We have to have some place for the common citizen to go to get compensation or a fair hearing under this bill.
I'm not going to berate the points over and over again. We've been listening to it for the last six or seven hours. Nothing much has changed. The same points keep coming out; the same points keep getting addressed. Where is the logic? Where is the common sense? Why didn't this government accept the hoist motion and give the people their say when it comes to this bill? Everybody wants the environment to be healthy. Everybody wants the environment to be in good shape. After all, if it isn't, then we humans, as a species, are not in very good shape. Everybody talks about the loggers. They want sustainable growth; they want sustainable forests just the same as the environmentalists. Because if they don't, they won't have an industry; they won't have a job 20 years down the road. There will not be a Mac-Blo working out there in the forests.
It's the same with this bill. It is time for us to use a little common sense. It's time for us to take a little time, look at this bill and debate it. The government is on the right track. We do need environmental safeguards in place, but we have to take time and look at these safeguards. We have to make sure that they're healthy for the province and not just possibly for an NDP agenda or a business agenda. We have to make sure that it is well balanced.
Take a look at some of these agriculture projects. They were talking about thresholds that will have to be established in consultation with the agriculture industry. This is with reference to discharges into the environment, and potential environmental and other impacts. They're talking about dairy operations where milking herds exceed 700 cows. I'd like to see the Minister of Agriculture show me a 700-cow dairy herd in this province. We talk about poultry, about 200,000 layers or 200,000 broilers. We are not into mass farming or factory farming in this province. We have some larger operations, but they are mainly family farms. Where would these regulations fit in?
We look at beef feedlots involving more than 5,000 cattle. This is not the United States, where they are putting 21,000 head through; this is Canada. And they talk about fish farm operations which produce more than 1,500 metric tonnes per annum. These are large operations. Like I said, we have to start taking a look at this logically and using some common sense.
Another point is that when we have an individual looking at this bill and saying: "This will affect anybody that utilizes their two acres, their garden shed...." It's going to affect people that have two-acre lots right up to somebody who has a thousand acres. It's going to affect every project that's ongoing in this province.
If we put in this kind of regulation, this kind of political interference, we are not going to have people investing in this province. We need their investment, and we need the jobs that come with that investment. We have somewhere around 73,000 unemployed single males at this point, and they're on the social welfare rolls. Somewhere along the line we have to create jobs to put these people back to work, so that they are constructive in this society. People have to have that feeling of being constructive. People do not like to be on the welfare rolls. Some do, mind you, but an awful lot of them don't.
But we don't have jobs for them. If we keep going with this type of regulation, without any common sense or logic put into it, we are going to have fewer jobs for these people, and we are going to have increased welfare rolls. Just how much can the common person and the taxpayer of British Columbia withstand? How many times can we go to their pockets to pay for the social welfare rolls? We can't. We have to learn, as a government, to cut the size of the bureaucracy. We have to become more efficient. We have to invest the moneys we save in wealth-generating ministries, such as Agriculture and Fisheries, Forests and Mines. When we tax those people and they pay their taxes, they will help us pay for the social services that have then become more efficient, I hope.
But until we learn, as a government, that we need investment to create jobs that keep people off the social welfare rolls, we're in trouble. We all want a healthy environment. We all have to have a healthy environment to survive on this planet. We have unique situations right in this province, which we all know about: the Fraser Valley and all the rest. We need that healthy environment, but we can't do it at the expense of the economy. It's a balancing act. We have to ensure that we keep that healthy environment while we have economic growth, so that we can maintain growth and go into the twenty-first and twenty-second centuries in good shape. Right now we're in pretty rough shape, because we can't afford what government we have. We can't afford to keep turning investment away.
We have to do a balancing act. It's time to have the people take a look at it. After all, this government went out and asked: "What can we do? What needs to be done to help the environment?" They listened; they went for 18 months. What is the rush right now? Why six days? We're debating this bill, and we haven't gone back to the same people to ask: "What do you think about this? Here are what we think might be regulations under this bill." Those people are going to give them honest answers. They're going to give them compliments, such as: "Your government went out of its way to seek input from all concerned over the past 18 months. We were pleased to cooperate." There will be a
[ Page 7152 ]
lot more statements like that if this government turns around and does what it did in the first place. How did it go off the rails? What is the rush?
[7:30]
On that note, I'm going to end my speech. As I said, I'm not going to speak for a long time, because all of these points have been covered over and over again. I implore this government to take this bill and go back to the same people they were talking to before, and ask them: "Does this fit the bill we were talking about? Does this fit the situation? If not, how can we improve it? These are what we think the regulations should look like. Do you agree with this?" When the bill comes back here, I'm quite sure it's going to go through this House with very little opposition.
L. Reid: I rise this evening to urge defeat of the Environmental Assessment Act. We are at the stage in British Columbia where I believe British Columbians are looking for some economic certainty. This bill does not provide it. I'm not even clear if this bill sends out a strong message in support of the environment; in fact, so much of this bill is left unknown at present. If someone who may indeed be interested in promoting and preserving the environment were to make application, the maze of the process is not something that is easily understood. I honestly believe that it's not something that can be supported at this time. If this government is truly interested in supporting the environment, it is not going to have a bill that is complex or vague in the extreme. That is where we find ourselves today.
When this minister rose and introduced this bill in first reading, I believe his words were: "...to establish an open, accountable, integrated and neutrally administered process." Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not a neutral framework with which to engage business in discussion about the care and protection of the environment; this is not an accountable piece of legislation. It is not going to provide clear, clean, precise answers to the environmental and investment questions that will be raised. We have to ask ourselves if this bill provides any reassurance to the investment or environmental communities.
Earlier today my Liberal colleagues spoke about balance, about the need to communicate effectively. I believe that's what we're here to do -- to engage in some kind of meaningful dialogue, not to confuse the issues in the extreme. This piece of legislation allows the cabinet extraordinarily broad powers; there's no issue with that. We are setting up a process under this legislation to grant approval for development projects. We're looking at mining projects; we may be looking at energy developments. What else? What other kinds of projects would this legislation look at? Again, British Columbians are unclear, because nothing has been stated as to what this bill might look at. Many questions remain unanswered, and that is an intolerable situation for individuals who wish to work in the area of environmental assessment and who wish to invest strongly in the province. They are not issues that we can deal with today.
I want to see a definition of "public interest" in this legislation. I believe British Columbians need to see that resolved. It's not in here, and it may be many months before British Columbians can actually access answers to some of these questions. As an opposition, we cannot stand in support of broad, open-ended, vague legislation. The regulations are unknown. It makes reasonable sense -- and again, it is not too much to ask -- to have those regulations come before the public. They are the individuals who will be paying for those regulations. It certainly seems that with 108 sections in this bill, if we're going to determine the impact and accountability surrounding this piece of legislation, we are going to be recovering costs from the individuals who wish to have this piece of legislation guide their deliberations. That is an unknown sum of money, because it's an unknown process. There's no time frame attached to it; there are no costs currently attached to it in hard, fast dollars.
We can't have business, we can't have an investment climate in this province, if we're saying to people: "Come invest in our province -- and we truly don't know today what it's going to cost you to do that." Business in the rest of the world doesn't operate that way; business in British Columbia cannot operate that way. We need to return a reasonable product. I have stood in this House many times and said that British Columbians will pay a reasonable tax for a reasonable product. They will be paying a tremendous amount of money for this piece of legislation, but there are no assurances -- none whatsoever -- that they will receive any reasonable product for their investment.
We talk about an Environmental Assessment Board. I think we're going to see environmental consulting become the most lucrative business in the province. I would like to see us build some other industry, some other technology. I don't wish to see us leech through the process, on the backs of people who wish to invest in this province. We are creating a separate entity that is going to prevent honest investment. I say "honest" with great care. It seems to me that if people have a blank cheque at their disposal with limited accountability in the process, you are not setting up an honest exchange of services for dollars, or an honest exchange of ideas.
We're not going to be in a position to attract reasonable investment. I believe Bill 32 will scare off more people than it attracts. It seems to me that this government has once again not acknowledged the need for a reasonable job creation plan or a reasonable investment plan. This is not going to set up a reasonable investment climate, and in no way is it going to reassure any members of the environmental community.
I believe that we're looking at development projects, but I also believe that we need to take a look at the regulations that will come forward. I believe that anybody who wishes to do business in this province has every right to expect the government to provide that kind of information. Because at the end of the day, they will be responsible for paying the bills. If we're going to be standing here as parliamentarians, we have to ensure that the people who pay the bills get something for their dollars.
[ Page 7153 ]
Frankly, Bill 32 is a hypothetical piece of legislation. It anticipates a broad range of entities, a broad range of exchanges of information, and does not provide what I need to see before I can lend my support to it. I would find it extremely difficult to support something as open-ended as this. This is not moving us more clearly down the path of understanding, where this government wishes to proceed. That's a huge issue.
I would like to see the minister really give something back to British Columbians. We again have a situation where there are broad powers, where the minister can specify the terms of reference for the public hearing process. Is that going to be a consistent set of recommendations? Is it going to be clear and precise? Or will each set of recommendations match a particular public hearing or a particular project? Once again, can British Columbians expect any consistency from this government? They need some consistency if indeed they are going to be interested in investing in British Columbia at all.
I spoke earlier of this legislation being somewhat futuristic. We are not prepared to move when we are not provided with reasonable information on this very complex but vague piece of legislation. We are looking at the project manager becoming the order-in-council and of giving huge discretionary powers to this government. Frankly, this government does not stand on a strong record of accountability. Legislation with limited accountability has come before this House. You will never see a member of the Liberal caucus give that kind of carte blanche without some kind of accountability.
We are looking at recovering the costs from the applicant. We are saying: "Invest in our province, and we may at some point tell you what your additional cost will be as a result of the environmental assessment which we will perform on your project, whether it be a mining project or an energy development of some description. The framework around the project, the questions posed and the costs are yet to be determined." If this legislation proceeds, this government is saying: "Trust us." We are not falling for that trap again. My hon. colleague from the Social Credit caucus talked about the promises this government made during the last election and that they are not fulfilling them. Yet this government would again say: "Trust us. We will come back to the table with some recommendations. We're not clear what they're going to be, but not to worry, we will come back to you." You will not see a member of the Liberal opposition support legislation that does not have an appeal process, because at the end of the day this is about the rights of the individual; this is about choice and opportunity. We are simply asking British Columbians to trust this government.
Frankly, hon. Speaker, I don't think you'll find many British Columbians at this stage in 1993 who are prepared to trust this government, because they have gone down this very same road and they have not arrived at a favourable destination. They look at the situation in Ontario and in other provinces, and they say: "No, we are not prepared to give our province away." I think over the next number of months British Columbians will say: "This is not the way we wish to proceed. This is the same group of people who promised us open government, who said they would ensure that all information was in our hands so we could make informed choices." This is the same government who would present Bill 32 with massive unknowns attached to it and with enormous uncertainty around investment and environmental questions.
It is an oxymoron to call it the Environmental Assessment Act and leave so much open to interpretation. This bill lacks interpretation and definition, and I honestly believe that it lacks direction. This is not going to clarify how business is done in British Columbia, and I don't believe it's going to clarify how we handle the environment. It's a pressing issue for the 1990s. A number individuals looked to this government to provide some answers and to give some information surrounding these questions. I believe that this government has simply confused the issue even further. They have brought more unknowns to the table and again said: "Trust us." We are not happy with it and we cannot accept it, because at the end of the day it is the role of the opposition to provide some checks and balances in the system and to scrutinize what the government is not prepared to scrutinize. In this case, the government is only prepared to ram this through -- the less discussion the better. It's an unacceptable position for the Liberal caucus to buy into.
We have spoken long hours in the chamber on the need to decrease bureaucracy and streamline the process. Is this piece of legislation in a position to do that? No. We believe it's going to increase the cost, increase the bureaucratic overlay and make environmental consulting one of the most lucrative business in British Columbia. We can do better.
I think it's time we addressed the significant issue. The issue surrounding this, once you peel all of those other parts away, will end up being jobs. The economic uncertainty will not translate into jobs. People will not invest in this province if there is no guarantee of a reasonable or even speedy assessment process. This bill does not suggest a professional approach. It does not suggest an expedited process. It simply says that if you're interested in doing business in British Columbia, we'll let you wallow in this maze, this labyrinth, and if you make it out the other side, maybe we'll let you do business. That will do nothing to bring jobs to this province.
[7:45]
If we look at the creation of the Environmental Assessment Board, we see an executive director who will have enormous powers -- the most powerful OIC appointment in this province. Are we looking at Bob Williams, Part II? That, frankly, is a scary scenario to be discussing.
Again, there are no grounds for appeal or compensation under this act. Individuals are going to invest without any sense of where this government wishes to proceed. That is not a position the Liberal caucus can support. It doesn't make sense. People are prepared to pay for reasonable government, but it must make sense to them. The government is in a position to set standards; I believe that is its role. They are not here
[ Page 7154 ]
to frustrate the electorate beyond belief. They are not here to frustrate the investment community. I believe that this piece of legislation will frustrate even the environmentalists in this province, because it is not clear how the government wishes to proceed.
If the purpose of this debate is clarification, I await clarification from the government. If the purpose of this debate is to assure all British Columbians that the bill will somehow improve the quality of their life and the British Columbian environment, I need to hear it. I have not heard that from any member on the government benches opposite. I have heard repeatedly: "Trust us. We know what is best." I don't accept that, and I don't know many British Columbians who are prepared to accept it any longer. They may have had a weak moment in October 1991, but they are now demanding accountability around all questions. They are not, I believe, going to feel that they've found any level of accountability regarding the Environmental Assessment Act.
I have serious concerns, because I believe that this act does not clarify its function or method of recommendation to the executive director. This is a debate in principle, and I cannot find principle in this piece of legislation. I'm not prepared to stand here today and suggest that we should all get behind another NDP blank cheque. This is an opportunity to once more gut the taxpayer without accountability. I think taxpayers are standing well back and saying, "No. We've done that; we're not going down that road again," and I would support them in that. The fact that people are now starting to ask tough questions and expecting something for their money is the way of the future, and it is the way we will proceed. This government will stand up repeatedly and say: "We don't have the dollars." What they're really saying is that a particular idea or issue is not a priority. But British Columbians realize that those are their dollars, and they will not wish to see them spent on something as open-ended as this legislation.
I could never support a blank cheque. I've gone down that road with this government too many times in terms of lack of process and accountability. After 18 months, frankly, it's not getting any better. It's becoming a habit from the government benches. They stand up and give the same speech. It really doesn't matter what the legislation is, or the intent of the bill, because at the end of the day, when you strip away all the rest, it's simply: "Trust us. We know what is best for you." I didn't accept that notion 18 months ago, and I don't accept it today. I am looking for accountability. I'm looking for neat, clean, precise legislation. This does not meet any of those criteria. If we look strictly at the issue of there being no appeal, that is absolutely abhorrent to the Liberal opposition. It's abhorrent to Liberals in the province, because liberalism is founded on opportunities for choice.
Let's take a little walk through history and go back to Bills 13, 14 and 71: "P.S. -- you can't sue us." We have to stand for a higher road than the one this piece of legislation would take us on. I don't want to share the road with this government as they bankrupt the province. If you cannot provide assurances to British Columbians that their ability and desire to invest in this province will somehow be respected.... You've done nothing in terms of building this province. I want to see a government in place who are builders, who believe in something and who are guided by a founding principle. That principle has to be more than: "Trust us. We know what's best for you." That's not an acceptable position. Frankly, there's nothing else in this bill. It says: "Trust us. We're going to put something in place, but we're not going to tell you what it is for many months down the road."
My hon. colleague from Okanagan East said: "It's a typical NDP response." I would agree with her that this government has proceeded over time by asking people to buy in early and then delivering a vastly different product. This opposition does not favour that. We have some accountability to our constituencies, to the electorate in this province, and they wish to see a balanced debate and some checks and balances in the system. We could never stand in support of an unknown piece of legislation. The fact that this government believes that British Columbians are prepared to accept that is intolerable.
The orders under this act state that all these items will be final and binding. No, British Columbia has to stand for choice. British Columbians demand choice, and I believe that they deserve some choices.
Again, I would urge the defeat of Bill 32. We cannot afford to introduce this new concept of economic uncertainty. That's what this legislation would do. It would say: "Come on down. Maybe you can do some business in this province." The price tag could be astronomical. We don't want individuals in our province to be at the mercy of this government. We're interested in having legitimate business people come to do business in the province.
My hon. colleague would have us believe that this legislation is somehow a game show. After 18 months in office, a government has to offer more to the constituents and taxpayers in this province than: what's behind door No. 1, and what's behind door No. 2? If we work through this piece of legislation, the opportunity for conflict is enormous, and the unheard-of price tag will be absolutely enormous.
Individuals may choose not to participate in investment projects in this province once they learn of this. We have heard comments on this legislation that suggest that they will not be able to withdraw; that they are accountable and remain accountable even if they decide not to proceed. Why are we locking people into something that will make limited sense to them at some future point? It makes limited sense today. We are not offering them any further assurances that this is going to take us down the road we wish to proceed on.
The road for the Liberal caucus -- and I think the road for a legitimate and reasonable government -- would be to provide a framework for investment and a receptiveness for investment. That's not found in this. It is going to scare off more people than it will attract, because it's not clear, precise or sensible legislation. This legislation throws open the barn door, and we would end up giving awards to people who actually choose to invest -- they had somehow run the gauntlet
[ Page 7155 ]
and survived. It's not a position I can support. I believe we need legislation that is the best. I don't believe that this legislation is the best that it can be.
On that note, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Chilliwack, that the motion for second reading of Bill 32 be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and substituting therefor the following: "Bill 32 not be read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Environment and Tourism."
On the amendment.
D. Jarvis: Hon. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment that was just presented by the member for Richmond East. I'm glad to see you're still in the chair. The last time I spoke here was about five hours ago, when we were speaking to the original motion.
I just want to say that we're not just standing here because this is a policy brought forward by the NDP or because we are against everything that the NDP brings forward. That is exactly wrong, because if you'll look back through the records you will find that we have voted many times in favour of proposals that have been brought forward by the NDP.
Why we're not supporting this is that we are very concerned with what's going on in this province and what the new minister of everything is proposing for the province. The one big aspect that really concerns me in the long-range plan is jobs. As has been said before, we in the lower mainland are busy. Most people out here are busy. But when you go out of the lower mainland and you head into the north, east and west of the north, and in the southeast of this province, you'll find that there is a considerable lack of jobs, especially in the resource-based areas.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: I hear the Minister of Environment criticizing me for making a statement such as that, but then I would say to him: how about his cohort sitting beside him -- the Minister of Energy and Mines? Let's look at the area she represents, the Elk Valley -- 38 percent unemployment, and she's doing nothing. I'd be embarrassed to go home.
This act will cause a loss of jobs and a loss of confidence, as there is no evidence that this bill will in actual fact speed up the assessment process; rather, it will slow it down. The process will just grind to a halt through the bureaucratic nightmare that's going to be created.
The Minister of Mines, for example, has a mining strategy that she put out several months ago, in which nothing really effective has been done to create any jobs in this province. However, she has created a new mineral land management and policy branch which will include new regional managers and mineral land planners -- more bureaucratic people, all adding to the bureaucratic nightmare that presents itself to this province -- and more and more friends and superfluous jobs. Why would they need them when they're going to have this new assessment act before them, where the Environment ministry will look after it?
She is also going to put a mine review and permit branch forward. This will also no doubt require regional managers, planners and all the rest of it. On and on she goes. Nothing formidable whatsoever has been done in her department. Even the mine development assessment program is being taken away from her, because it's completely incompetent, and being thrown into the Environment ministry under this act. This is supposedly going to create more jobs; rather, it's going to create more confusion, and we will be suffering from it in the long run.
[8:00]
I want to bring up another point about public involvement. As in the Kemano review, the government is giving itself the right to pay the cost of other participants in any review brought forward by this assessment act. They will pay up to $250,000 to assist people to come and vent their feelings, if they think that what is being presented is not acceptable to them. We're going to see groups like the Friends of the Squirrels and the All Beings. In Quesnel the All Beings are represented at the CORE table. Those people come to the table and hold a position; they represent insects and bugs that can't speak for themselves. They're paid; they're given a handout of $175 a day. Their babysitting, food and travel allowance is paid for. It's just a ridiculous situation.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: That's what we're trying to do: speak for the bugs that can't speak for themselves.
Applicants putting forward proposals for projects in this province are also in a very dire situation under this new act. They will be fully responsible for any costs incurred by the environmental assessment board, other participants in the review or for fees of consultants hired by the environmental assessment board. So here we are: the government is creating this new all-powerful board and asking the applicants to pay all the expenses.
D. Lovick: It's d�j� vu all over again.
D. Jarvis: Yes. The member for Nanaimo came in. It's d�j� vu again. Here I am five hours later talking on the same subject.
In any event, this is going to be a very costly bureaucracy. This act will put into place a costly bureaucracy and a structure for the creation and development of new projects in British Columbia. It also allows legislation to be put forward without specific regulations. The bill is another in a series of NDP blank cheques, a very vague proposal enabling legislation without any regulations. It probably will not be acceptable to the business community, which is prepared to invest and develop this province.
One thing that really upsets me is that the executive director of this new environmental assessment board will probably be the most powerful CEO appointment in the province. What does Bob Williams say about this?
[ Page 7156 ]
Mr. Secretariat, the head pooh-pooh of all the Crown corps in this province, is now going to be relegated to second position, I believe.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. In the opinion of the Chair, you are straying somewhat from the debate on the advisability of referring this to a standing committee. I would also urge you not to use language such as "head cuckoo."
D. Jarvis: No, I didn't say that.
Deputy Speaker: Whatever it was, hon. member, I don't think there's a need to elaborate the problem that we would have with such language. It's certainly unparliamentary, and I'm sure the hon. member wouldn't want to commit an offence in that regard. Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: You're right, Mr. Speaker. I was in actual fact.... I didn't say the words that you mentioned, but I would never want to insult the gentleman. I was just referring to his high station with this New Democratic Party.
The feeling out there is that there is no room in the inn anymore for investment or development in this province. As I said before, the minister who will be in charge, the Minister of Environment, will be very biased.
D. Lovick: There's a neutral agency.
D. Jarvis: That is what everyone has wanted: to put it in an arm's-length, neutral agency, but it's not in this bill. This Environment minister is an advocate for the environment. How could he be at arm's length when he has to make decisions such as this?
There is nothing imaginative or creative in this bill. All it says is that the free enterprise sector is.... Where is it going to come from? If you were in this situation, would you come to British Columbia to invest or develop? Not very likely. The way this bill will be put up, people will be afraid and want to go elsewhere. Accordingly, I am going to support the amendment and vote in favour of placing this bill into committee at this point.
G. Wilson: I don't intend to speak very long, but I do want to be direct in my comments on this amendment, because it's sensible. It's an amendment that is going to use a parliamentary committee for the job that it's struck to do. A bill that has had some consultation in its drafting will be taken back to the public in order that those in industry and in communities can take a look and see how it might work. The committee would be able to look at appropriate and worthwhile amendments.
The Liberal opposition is not in any way trying to filibuster this bill; we're not trying to be disruptive to the government's agenda. We recognize a need for some form of environmental assessment regulation. However, we do note that a number of matters in this bill have not been thought through clearly. One, of course, is the all-pervasive category of effects to be looked at -- environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects. We need to look at that in some detail.
Second is the whole question of how the culture, heritage and economic involvement of first nations are going to impact on environmental assessment, not only on lands under the jurisdiction of aboriginal communities but also on those lands that neighbour them. That's not clearly spelled out in this bill.
Third is this whole question of the executive director. When I earlier brought up the question of the executive director, the members opposite actually started to take note. What this provides -- and the member for Cariboo North nodded and said, "Yes, right, that's exactly what it does" -- is centralize incredible power in the hands of an appointed government bureaucrat who is anything but at arm's length. We need to look at how that appointment can take place, what the powers of that executive director are going to be, how he can constitute this review process, how amendments to applications are going to be handled, and how fairly this can be applied to matters that are extremely subjective. Often we are not armed with statistical information that provides a definitive yes or no answer to a lot of the environmental issues that are going to be raised by somebody in that position.
There are some real reasons why we wanted to do this. In my earlier lengthy speech I attempted to point out that the Liberal opposition recognized the need for a set of established, consistent rules -- everybody, including industry, wants a set of rules that they know are not going to change. We are in favour of a committee such as the one we are suggesting right now to bring all of this commentary together under one ministry. It would be extremely effective in taking this bill and going back for final consultation on it, and in recognizing that there are some areas here where there are serious concerns.
When I was speaking previously, there was a fair bit of interruption from members opposite. Indeed I myself was interrupted for an introduction, which, interestingly enough, in checking with MacMinn, is something that has maybe been overlooked. It's something we might call the "California intro," which is kind of like a rolling intro in the middle of a speech, when you recognize there's somebody up top. We might want to incorporate that in the rules of the House -- sort of like a California stock, if you know what I mean.
Coming back to the point, it's difficult to get a flow going when we're in discussion and there are interruptions. It seems to me that this particular amendment is both timely and worthwhile. I believe it would be in the interests of all British Columbians. I believe that the government would benefit by such a referral, and so I hope that the members opposite will take seriously this attempt to move this back to committee. It's offered in the spirit of cooperation. It's offered in a spirit that clearly says we want to be constructive in our approach to this bill so that we can get around some of the issues and problems that have been
[ Page 7157 ]
alluded to by our Mines critic, our Environment critic and other members on this side of the House.
Having said that, hon. Speaker, I certainly support the amendment. I hope that all the members opposite who are truly dedicated to having a sensible piece of legislation come forward with their support. With respect to the amendment of the rules, maybe we could look at that as a private member's statement, because the California intro might speed up the process.
J. Tyabji: I rise to support this amendment, but I do so with an increasing sense of frustration at the activities of the government. It's unfortunate that we've had limited input from the government benches on Bill 32, even from the back bench. As the opposition, we have tried repeatedly to get the message across that when you have a piece of legislation of this magnitude you don't ram it through the House within a week. In fact, if you spent 18 months in consultation to establish the bill, you should at least take a little bit of time with the bill to allow for some constructive feedback. It's incredibly frustrating not only to see that this government is intent on rushing it through but also that we are informed that we will be finished second reading tonight, and that's up to us as to how late we want to sit. That is one of the most unfortunate and stubborn approaches to constructive legislation and constructive debate that I've ever seen.
If this Minister of Environment is committed to having a good piece of legislation, so committed that he sends the parliamentary secretary around the province for 18 months, and if we end up with this 108-section bill as a result of that, why is it so important to have it pass second reading in ten days? How do we get the message through to the government that something of this magnitude deserves to be considered for some length of time? Why is it that the government refuses to listen?
We know the bill doesn't allow for public input. We know that we have committees that are set up with various levels of government. We've canvassed all the various points of the bill in second reading. We've talked about the principle of the bill in detail. Yet we've had little or no feedback from the government about every specific point we've made: the points about the executive director, the potential draft legislation, the role of the minister, the reviewable projects, the definition of the role of the aboriginal peoples, the different people who will be at the committee, and so on. Why isn't industry at the table? Why isn't the public at the table? These are specific points that we've raised, and they are points of significant magnitude. Rather than have government members jump to their feet to offer a rebuttal, we have had silence. We are carrying this debate and trying desperately to talk some sense into the government by saying: "All right, if you're not prepared to accept our amendments, if you're insisting that this bill be rushed through, tell us why." Tell us what the incredible rush is. Tell us why it has to be passed now, rather than hoisting it and bringing it into the fall session. What's the urgency? I don't understand this, hon. Speaker. If there's an answer, we would like to have it. Instead, we're sitting here with an incredible sense of frustration. Although we're being canvassed by members of the public who say they want to know more about this bill, we're in a situation where all we can do is to try to slow down the process. But ultimately, if the government isn't going to listen and if, as with Bill 84 and some of the other bills they brought before the House, there's a refusal to have any amendments or slow the process down, we have little choice. That's unfortunate. But the one good thing about it is that if this government continues to treat the constructive input from the opposition in this way, the fate of the government two years down the road will be very clear, because the public demands some input to and accountability from their elected members and cabinet.
[8:15]
If the public had great expectations of this bill because they had input in the 18 months before it came to the House, surely to goodness this government is going to realize that the public expected to hear back from them, and not in the sense of saying: "By the way, here's the statute that we just passed in the House." They expected to hear back in terms of draft legislation.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member for Nanaimo, who of course was responsible for taking the road show around the province and is in large part responsible for this bill, is saying that the public did hear back from him. That's not what we're hearing, hon. Speaker. We know that this bill was only introduced ten days ago; it was only brought before the House ten days ago. If this member had this bill ready ahead of time, why not introduce it at the beginning of the session?
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Oh, how patronizing!
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows full well the rules of the House, that he is not to speak until recognized. Would the hon. member please proceed.
J. Tyabji: As I've said to the members of the government before, they are free to join in the debate. If this member wants to stand up and tell us why these draft recommendations that went to the public were good enough, then I'd welcome hearing from him. I'd like to say for the record that I found his comments extremely patronizing in terms of thinking that he could set me straight on something -- unless he'd like to do so in debate, which is perfectly fair.
Hon. Speaker, with that, I have to say that it is unfortunate. The tone of debate has changed; we are trying to say to the government that we don't think ten days is adequate time to review a bill of this magnitude. I find it interesting that the Minister of Environment finds this all very amusing. I don't know what more we can say to a government that thinks that this is a matter
[ Page 7158 ]
of levity. So with that, I end my comments on the amendment.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 17 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Cowie |
Reid |
|
Gingell |
Dalton | Wilson |
|
Hanson | Weisgerber | Tyabji |
| K. Jones | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Hurd | Tanner | Symons |
| Neufeld | De Jong | |
|
NAYS -- 31 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Edwards |
Cashore |
Barlee |
|
Beattie |
Schreck |
Lali |
|
Conroy | Miller | Gabelmann |
| Hagen | Sihota | Clark |
|
Cull | Lovick | Zirnhelt |
| Blencoe | Barnes | Lovick |
| Ramsey | Pullinger | Evans |
| Doyle | Streifel | Lord |
| Randall | Garden | Kasper |
| Brewin | Janssen | |
On the main motion.
Hon. T. Perry: I'll be speaking in favour of the bill; I intend to vote for it. I'll be very brief.
I've listened to quite a bit of the debate tonight, and I'm pleased to say that the debate has met all three classic criteria of a good filibuster. It's been repetitive and redundant, it's contributed little or no new enlightenment, and above all it's been boring and tedious. So as Minister of Advanced Education, I can award an A-plus....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the minister take his seat for a moment. I realize that it is getting late in the evening, but I would ask members to extend courtesy to the member who has the floor at this time.
Hon. T. Perry: As Minister of Advanced Education, I'm pleased to note I can award an A-plus for filibustering to the hon. members opposite. I want to assure you that I'm not being unparliamentary. I'm being highly complimentary, but I intend to avoid the sincerest form of flattery. I shall not imitate.
There's a time to discuss and debate, and there's a time for action. I've been involved in environmental activism in this province in various ways and at various times since the late 1960s. I've followed environmental impact assessment since the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, of the United States Congress in 1968. My initiation to many of these issues was through the very long-running controversy over the proposed flooding of the Skagit Valley. I participated in many environmental assessments: a phony one conducted in 1970 by an environmental consultant for the Social Credit B.C. government under a staged, phony process.... I participated in a review by the International Joint Commission of that issue in 1971, an environmental impact assessment heavily constrained by the laws of the time and the impotence of the International Joint Commission in those days. I participated in the United States Federal Power Commission review of that project and in a subsequent review by the International Joint Commission in 1980 or 1981.
I've waited a long time for a comprehensive Environmental Assessment Act in this province. Specifically, I've waited 23 or 24 years, and many people have waited a lot longer than that.
[8:30]
Last spring the member for Nanaimo travelled the province, listened to the public, listened to input from proponents of industrial projects, from the business community and from the environmental activist community, and made his report to the Minister of Environment. The minister reviewed these questions not only while he was the opposition critic; in the 18 or 19 months he's been minister, he's given full consideration, deliberation and consultation to this act, and he has done a good job. That's why I intend to vote for it. This act will provide a major advance in assuring competent and thorough environmental impact assessment of major projects in this province; it will ensure that the job is done fairly, scientifically and with full opportunity for not only the public but also various levels of government and project proponents to get the facts out on the table.
Interjection.
Hon. T. Perry: I hear the hon. leader of the Liberal Party asking me to tell him how this will do that. I suggest that if he carefully reads the act, background documentation and explanatory information presented in his press briefings by the Minister of Environment, goes back to the briefing notes that I'm sure the hon. Minister of Environment has provided to the Liberal Environment critic in the time prior to introduction of the bill on June 4th and listens carefully to the hon. minister in second reading debate and the answers given to well-informed, precise questions during committee stage debate, I believe that the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Environment critic will be convinced that this is a sound approach to our needs.
I want to speak to comments I heard earlier from members of the opposition about the reaction of project proponents, particularly the mining and forest industries. This is a sincere attempt from the Minister of Environment working with colleagues in the resource development ministries. I see here in front of me, attending the debate, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who have participated thoroughly in the preparation of this document. I see the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister of Economic
[ Page 7159 ]
Development was here a few moments ago. All of those ministries have had thorough participation in the development of this legislation. It has been an exercise of the most expert minds in our civil service. Some civil servants, such as the deputy ministers in those three resources ministries, have extraordinarily good reputations throughout the civil service and with the communities they serve in this province.
This bill will serve the public of B.C. well. It's no accident that it has the active support of many of those most thoughtful people in the environmental activist community, like the West Coast Environmental Law Association, a group which has pioneered fair and effective environmental impact assessment and the use of the courts to ensure that it was achieved in the bad old days when we had no legislative protection.
In summary, this is going to be a major step forward. I've followed its progress over the last few months to a year through the cabinet. I have confidence that we have the most dedicated Environment minister we have ever had in British Columbia's history, and that under his stewardship and that of his colleagues in the resource ministries, we will have the best environmental impact assessment in North America. The proof of that pudding, for example, are the new standards announced in the responses of the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests to the comments that the commissioner on resources and the environment, Mr. Stephen Owen, made about the Clayoquot Sound land use decisions. Those standards will be the toughest in British Columbia history; they will be the toughest in North America. They will provide the best guarantee that we have yet had of sound environmental protection. They stem from the same philosophy behind this act: an intent to do things right, protect our British Columbia environment as part of the global environment and recognize that the public expects nothing less from us.
I urge hon. members of the opposition to read the bill carefully, listen to the comments of the Minister of Environment, ask their good questions during committee stage and stop filibustering now so that we can get on with passing this bill and improving the status of environmental impact assessment in B.C. I'll be proud to vote for this bill, and I look forward to its swift passage.
F. Gingell: I shall be very brief. One comes to realize, after a time of sitting and listening to everybody and hearing very real concerns expressed by members of the opposition, that this government really doesn't want to listen. It wanted to go around on its little project and talk to people about this bill before it was tabled, but real consultation has that process as the first step. The second step is to go back to these people and say: "We listened to you. This is what we think you said. This is the type of proposal and structure and organization that this government would like to bring into practice, and here's your opportunity to tell us what you think about it." But that hasn't been done. As you've heard all opposition members state, whether from our party or the third party, we all support better environmental laws. We all support better environmental process. We all support a process that will allow developments to go ahead in a sensible, timely manner and in which the proponents know what the rules are.
I would just like to focus on one portion of the bill. This bill allows interveners to be funded by the proponent of a development. I don't see anything in this bill that requires any limit on that. Surely it would be relatively simple to have some limits there -- say, 1 percent of the first $5 million of anticipated expenditures on the program, 0.5 percent of the next $5 million and one-tenth of 1 percent of everything thereafter. But no, there are no restrictions on it at all. In fact, the minister can require the proponent to pay the minister's expenses. What kind of game is this? You could have left in a requirement for the proponent to fund the interveners if you'd put in a sensible set of rules. Then somebody looking at a $50 million project would know that they have to put up $475,000, not $4.75 million or $10 million. You may believe those numbers to be ridiculous, but hiring lawyers, engineers and people to prepare these reports can be an expensive business.
An Hon. Member: And accountants.
F. Gingell: Accountants are even worse. You might have to hire lawyers and pay a 7 percent tax on top. Put in some restrictions. Give the proponents some sense of comfort that they're not going to be taken to the cleaners.
If there was any attitude by this government that they were willing to listen and consider these kinds of alternatives, all British Columbians would feel a lot more comfortable about it. But they say: "Trust us." One of the little sayings that will stay with me for the rest of my days is from when I ran in the 1988 federal election. There was a Libertarian running. He was very European, and he would get on the stage and say: "All these politicians say: 'Trust me, trust me.' But I say to you: 'Do not trust them.' I also say to you: 'Do not trust me, either'." That's what's involved here. This government is expecting the people of British Columbia to accept a set of vague, ill-defined rules, leaving all kinds of power in the hands of an executive director and the minister. There is no appeal to the courts that would ensure a proper and fair process has taken place.
This government speaks all the time about the need for economic development in this province. That's how we're going to get out of our deficit problem; that's the way we're going to pay off our debt -- even though they haven't recognized that the first thing they must do is cut spending, not just cut the amount of the deficit. They surely must realize that they must create an environment for economic development. This type of legislation does not encourage economic development because of its uncertainty.
The idea is very good. That will produce economic development -- a clearly defined set of rules, a clearly defined set of time guidelines. As one of the government members said, you are now looking at a potential six-month time frame, whereas in the past people have been involved for six years. Six-year
[ Page 7160 ]
economic review processes discourage, not encourage, economic development. So we strongly support the principles that were involved -- the reasons they brought this bill forward -- but they've got it wrong again. I guess it's not going to make any difference now, and so the steamroller of the 50 votes will flatten everything in its path. It will flatten us, and our big concern is that it flatten economic development too.
This government had the opportunity to create a climate for economic development. They had the opportunity to vote for hoisting this bill for six months to allow themselves time to get some reaction to it. I'm really sorry that they didn't take that alternative. With those words, hon. Speaker, I will take my seat and vote against this bill when that vote is called.
Hon. A. Edwards: It is a pleasure to stand up and speak to second reading on this bill, because this bill is one on which I and my ministry worked very hard, in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. I think this is good legislation.
I want to tell a little story. It's not a bedtime story, hon. members, but I'm going to start with "once upon a time."
Once upon a time in this province, there was a mine development review process. It was a good process. It was brought forward because there was a recognition that we had to do environment assessment on some of the major economic projects in this province. Along with it and trailing a bit behind was an energy review process. But basically the mine development review process was the item that attracted attention. It attracted attention from all over the world because what it did was give a process to consider the environmental impact of significant economic development, of mine development. It started with coalmining and from there it spread into the hard-metal mines. Ultimately, for the very reason that we are introducing this legislation, it was brought into legislation by the government that preceded ours: it is useful to have a process laid out that recognizes the requirements that are there, that the public expects to be there, that the industry expects to be there and that the government is going to carry out. You put it into legislation.
[8:45]
The previous government put the mine development review process into legislation, and the members of this party, who are now government and were then in opposition, supported that legislation. It's strange now to me to watch the third party, which at one time was the government that legislated that mine development review process, saying that this doesn't do what it should do. It's very strange to watch, but getting from once upon a time to here is sometimes a difficult process.
It was, as I say, legislation that gave a structure to what we were doing. It was clearly in place for mine projects. It was clearly in place for energy projects. Those are the two areas in which my ministry deals, and that's why I've been so centrally involved in looking at what has happened with this legislation.
Because it was good legislation, because it looked like it was something that should apply to other major projects, the previous government brought in the major project review process. That was tried out twice. I've heard other members in the House say that it worked very well, too; they thought that was a good process. It was used on a ferrochromium project that was proposed for Port Hardy, and it was used for the Celgar pulp mill in Castlegar. In both cases the commissioner who was appointed to deal with those projects brought in things that were a little different than what had happened before. The people who directed those processes were constantly looking at ways to do what they were trying to do. What they were trying to do was not laid out in legislation. It was brand-new. They didn't have precedents; they didn't have those kinds of things to work with.
Basically the people of the province looked upon all of this and said, as they looked at their environment with their increasing recognition that governments have to recognize what will happen to the environment when we put economic projects into place, that they wanted a part in saying what was to be done, in hearing what was to be done, in giving advice to government and in making the decisions that come into sustainable development or the balancing of the economy and the environment. Because they said that, they demanded that there be a better process, that there be one process for all of these projects, that there be some direction that made some sense for major projects right across the province. Basically, that is why this government said it would put together the best of what we have and the best of what we can see happening, and the demands that are in the public good, and have a single process. That's exactly what we have put together in this bill.
We also recognized that there was a great deal of interest in this. Members of both opposition parties have very clearly recognized that there has been consultation for 18 months. As a matter of fact, the point has been made strongly that we consulted with the public, with industry and with all segments of the population of British Columbia about what we proposed to do. We put out a White Paper, took it around and said: "This is what we want to do." We came back with what the public said, and since then have been consulting with industry, environmentalists, municipal governments and other governments. We have taken what the people told us, listened and put that into the legislation.
One of the things the investors said was that this process needs to be put together. We don't need one process for one type of industry and another process for another type of industry. That is exactly why we have this single legislation. The mining and energy industries said that they thought we were doing a good job with good legislation and that we shouldn't totally exclude the ministry that is concerned with their projects. Because this is environmental assessment legislation as well as project review legislation, we said that we couldn't exclude the ministry involved. The Minister of Environment and the responsible minister are the ministers who make decisions if a project is not going to formal public hearing and is to be controlled by cabinet. It will then be directed by two ministers. One minister will be the Minister of Environment and
[ Page 7161 ]
the other minister will be the minister responsible. In the case of mines or energy, it would the Minister of Energy and Mines. In the case of pulp mills, it would be the Minister of Forests. In other projects, it might be the Minister of Economic Development. It will be another minister who will be involved with the Minister of Environment. That responds to direct input received when we took our proposals to the public.
We also responded by bringing forth legislation that establishes an arm's-length agency. That agency will not be in any particular ministry of government but will be a semi-autonomous, arm's-length agency. As an example, a number of people in the petroleum industry suggested that we should look at the ERCB in Alberta, which is the very same sort of thing. Some members on the opposition side talk about the gas industry. They talk about the environmental review board being a good thing. Certainly the industry likes it there. They like an arm's-length agency that makes these kinds of decisions. This legislation is modelled partly on that. It will reflect the strengths they have there. It will reflect something that is very well-liked by a large number of the people who will be working with this legislation.
During the consultations we were told that the reviews are currently taking too long; that industry needs to have promptness. It needs to know that it will be able to apply and that there will be a response in a reasonable length of time. Therefore time frames and deadlines are put in this legislation. There will be time frames in the legislation itself for parts of the process; there will be time frames in the regulations for other parts of it, and those are very clearly there in response to what we were told.
We were also told that in the previous processes there was not enough coordination with other governments -- particularly the federal government -- and that every time we got our process going, there would be a holdup from another government, and they weren't coordinated. One government wanted some things and another government wanted something else, and therefore we should coordinate that. That is incorporated in this legislation as well. Within this legislation, we will be able to work with other governments to assure that there is no duplication of requirements, that there is a coordination of requirements and that there is a coordination in the timing of what is going to happen. That is in direct response to what members of the industry have said.
A number of comments were put to the process and to our proposal, which said that there must be a better way for public involvement. That was there right from the beginning, and it was very clear that it had to be responded to. We've done that in a couple of ways that I want to talk about specifically, and one is with the project registry. With this legislation, the materials that go to the agency have to be registered so that even those who are not participating directly in the process will be able to have access to the materials. They have to be filed in the registry, and they have to be filed promptly.
In the meantime, we have as well worked very hard to establish an interim policy for participant assistance. Members of the public who have tried to participate in hearings and reviews when they had significant things to say and were unable to fund their part in it were very clear that they wanted some participant assistance. There's no question that this has been accepted by a number of the people who have been involved in hearings, and I might say specifically the commissioner of the major project review process on the ferro-chromium hearing. Participant assistance was awarded there. So under very specific guidelines that apply to any participant assistance under government in B.C., there can be participant assistance in these review processes, as there is now with the Utilities Commission and as there will be with this kind of project review.
I have heard a number of members of the opposition suggest that all of a sudden it is brand-new that the proponent of a project should pay the costs of the hearing. The proponent of a project currently pays the cost of their application. They currently apply to do a project, and they pay the cost of that hearing. Instead of making broad general statements that this will not work when in fact there are some major misconceptions, I think we really need to go to committee stage and have the members of the opposition get to the points that they want to talk about. We want to get through second reading. We were particularly ripe for second reading; there had been 18 months of consultation, as the opposition readily admits. There has been broad consultation. Previously this evening a member read a letter from the Vancouver Board of Trade, which recognized the extent and value of the public consultation until now. We have said very clearly that this legislation is here now. We will have second reading and then we want to open our ears again, because we have constantly consulted. We are open to suggestions for amendments. If we have amendments put to us that make sense within the context of this legislation, they will be considered at committee stage.
We are not even rushing this bill. There's some suggestion that going to second reading and trying to get through it is "ramming it through," if I may be allowed a quotation from my hon. colleague. We're not ramming at all, hon. Speaker. The second reading is something for which every member in this House, if they are not ready to discuss, should be ready to discuss. They should have considered it over the past 18 months, because it's a matter of considerable concern and importance to the people of this province. It's important because it lays out rules with time frames and registries that respond to the requirement that we be open in this legislation. It responds to the issues of coordination with other governments, an arm's-length agency and a consideration that more than one ministry is involved for projects that come forward.
I would suggest, hon. Speaker, that we need to proceed with this legislation that we have talked about for some considerable length of time, because we have answered many of the concerns of the people who have given us input. We have given them a response and are willing to do it again when we proceed to committee stage. We want the legislation to be there to give industry certainty about what is in it.
[9:00]
[ Page 7162 ]
We will proceed, after the legislation, with more consultation on the regulations. That is a commitment from this government. The regulations will also follow consultation, because some of the issues that we will be dealing with there will depend a lot.... One of the issues that is particularly crucial is how we manage the funding of the whole review process. That will be in the regulations, and we need more consultation on that.
I am proud to stand and speak today with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks in supporting this bill and encouraging everyone to vote for it. Please look to the committee stage, because that is where the issues are going to be discussed. It is important that we get this legislation through to give the kind of openness and certainty required, which is promised in this bill.
The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Environment who, upon rising, closes debate.
Hon. J. Cashore: Since moving second reading on the debate of the Environmental Assessment Act, I have heard some very interesting comments from the opposition. I want to make it clear that the opposition has raised important issues. It is very clear, however, that the issues they have raised are not new; some of them have been raised by industry, the public and other parties that have participated in the development of this very vital legislation. Most importantly, they are issues that have been clearly and effectively addressed in this legislation. This legislation will, after all, improve environmental assessment and foster economic development, job creation and other benefits for British Columbians, while sustaining a healthy and diverse natural environment.
Bill 32 is not introducing a totally new approach to environmental assessment in British Columbia, as my hon. colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has just pointed out. Many of the comments made in this debate have suggested that this proposal will dramatically change the requirements placed on the proponents of major developments. That is simply not the case. The fact is that we are moving to set and make right that which has not been handled well in the past.
It is true that the mine development review process and the energy development review process are two legislated processes that are significant steps in the right direction, and they have benefited greatly under the administration of my hon. colleague. But too often in the history of this province when it came to developmental projects -- under Socred governments it was a matter of going into a back room and making decisions that did not see the light of day -- those decisions have caused enormous problems for the people of British Columbia. I'm sure that the hon. members of the Liberal Party are not going to defend the kind of fiasco that has been caused by the failure of the Socreds to have appropriate environmental assessment, especially in situations such as the Kemano.
I would assume that the members of the Liberal Party, while it was quite fuzzy in terms of the comments that they made, would want me to make it very clear that they separate themselves and make themselves distinct from the kind of position that the Social Credit Party has gotten this province into and which we are moving to correct.
But the fact is that under the direction of the third party when it was in power, processes requiring the review of major and a wide range of developments were put in place. In fact, as has been said, there are three existing processes: two legislated processes, the mine development assessment process and the energy project review process; and one process that was not legislated, the major project review process. This proposed legislation builds on the strengths of these processes, and it also corrects a number of important weaknesses.
The question has been raised about creating bureaucracy. Hon. members, this consolidates bureaucracy and makes government more efficient. The bill is consolidating and strengthening existing processes.
It's a bit interesting to hear the members, who either haven't read the bill or who are putting a particular spin on this bill that is simply not there. That is very inappropriate, hon. Speaker, and I don't think it's a service....
An Hon. Member: And you never did it.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member, in acknowledging that he would indulge in this kind of thing himself, has said: "And you never did it." The fact is, I think that in the comment you've just made you've indicated what you have been indulging in, in the way in which you've carried your comments on this bill.
The fact is, hon. Speaker, that the bill will bring together the information necessary to reach balanced decisions made with the full knowledge of their implications -- and in the interests of all British Columbians. We are keeping British Columbia in line with similar requirements for environmental assessment in other provinces across Canada and, indeed, in Canada itself.
It's very interesting. I've listened carefully to this discussion, and I don't believe that one member of either opposition party has recognized the importance of this legislation, for British Columbia to be able to control its resource development in a made-in-British Columbia process. What the opposition parties would have us do is delay and delay, even though we have gone through an 18-month consultation process. They would delay to the point that we would no longer have control of what's happening with B.C. resources; they would sooner abandon that to the federal government.
It is very interesting that the two opposition parties do not want to protect provincial responsibility and sovereignty with regard to resource issues. This is not increasing uncertainty. We are providing a clearer, more predictable and timely process; we are providing a set of procedures that will facilitate the consideration of sustainable development and employment opportunities, and it will improve investment.
The member for Nanaimo has gone around with this consultation process. The consultation that he conducted was thorough to the extent that he is the
[ Page 7163 ]
most knowledgable individual on environmental assessment in this province. He conducted a very thorough process in which he listened to countless British Columbians speaking from many different perspectives. The fact is that consultation is currently underway on this bill.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: On this very day, officials within the ministry have been in consultation with a number of the stakeholder groups in contact with us -- including people from all parts of the spectrum -- business, environmentalists and so forth. Also, during the months that will be required to develop and put the regulations in place, consultation will take place again.
The hon. member for Nanaimo visited 13 communities throughout British Columbia. He met with over 700 people and received their views and ideas on how environmental assessment could be improved in this province. In addition, he received over 600 written submissions on the discussion paper: "Reforming Environmental Assessment in British Columbia." We have listened to the views, and those views are reflected in this bill. After going out to the public with the paper, "Reforming Environmental Assessment in British Columbia," the hon. member for Nanaimo came back and presented a report on the environmental review study process. He reported very thoroughly on that. There is a report that we have gone through in great detail which has formed the basis for what we see before us today.
The key elements of reformed approach to environmental assessment in B.C. were supported by the participants in the consultation process. The legislation before us represents a clear articulation of the elements that they brought into that discussion. Their key recommendations are shown in this bill, which provide for certainty and predictability. Individuals representing the different interests were looking for clearly stated requirements, time frames and accountability. The legislation addresses these objectives. The specific requirements for a project will be tailored to the characteristics and complexity of the project and the significance of its potential environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects.
Projects can be approved early when effects are well-documented and can be prevented or mitigated to an acceptable level. One thing that this process will provide is identification of those projects that need to go through very little process at all. Then there are projects whose potential impacts are uncertain or may be more difficult to manage, and they will receive a somewhat more detailed review. Only the most complex and contentious projects will be referred to the environmental assessment board for independent public hearings.
Time frames specifying the period available for public comments at each of these stages are included in the legislation. Time frames for government actions required at each of these stages will be defined in regulation, and establishing them will result in the timely and predictable assessment of projects. Decisions on whether a project should be approved or rejected may be made at three stages in the process. After the review of an application, a decision is made by the minister and the responsible minister, putting the lie to the comment made so many times that this was amassing the power in one minister. That simply is not correct, and the hon. members opposite should acknowledge it. After the review of a project report, a decision is made by the minister and the responsible minister, and after public hearings are held by the environmental assessment board, a decision may be made by cabinet. It should be emphasized that each of these key decisions is made not just by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks but in concert with either the minister responsible for a particular project sector or the cabinet itself.
This joint decision-making model will ensure that not only the environmental implications of a project are taken into account but that the economic, social, cultural and heritage impacts are fully considered, as well as any interest of the particular client groups represented by the responsible minister. The involvement of the responsible minister is in direct response to the desire expressed by industry to see a continued strong role for the ministers who represent the key sectors of our economy. What is in the bill is something that has been identified and requested by industry. It includes the ministers who play pivotal roles in the administration of the existing three processes.
During the consultation on this legislation there was also a strong demand expressed by environmental organizations and members of the general public for a more open and participatory process. It's interesting that during this debate very little was heard from the opposition parties on the issue of advocating on behalf of the environment itself. We have here a balanced approach that recognizes the full spectrum of stake-holders, but speaker after speaker talked about just one side of that issue. It indicates that the two opposition parties are far behind industry and business itself, which want to be environmentally responsible, and to be so in the context of the kind of legislation and regulations that the Socreds failed to provide so that they don't get jerked around by political whim. They will know when the next decision-making point is, and they can make plans accordingly. Shame on the opposition parties for not having advocated on behalf of the environment during this debate.
The legislation provides the public with a guaranteed opportunity to review and comment on proposals. It creates a project registry to provide access to information provided by the proponent, government agencies and the public on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed projects. It provides for establishment of project committees, with representation from the four levels of government to build consensus on project assessments prior to ministerial decision. The legislation also provides an opportunity for independent public hearings by the environmental assessment board for particularly complex and contentious projects. Copies of Bill 32 and associated
[ Page 7164 ]
background information have been provided to over 1,700 individuals and organizations with a request for suggestions on how they think the bill can be improved. That has gone out, and the consultation process is underway. In addition, direct contact is being made with representatives of business, industry, labour, environmental organizations, first nations, local government and the federal government to receive comments on the bill. Does that sound as though we're not in consultation? We're very much in consultation.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the House to come to order. Please continue, hon. Minister.
[9:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: I intend to look at their suggestions very carefully, and I am prepared to bring forward amendments that will improve the bill. This is the same approach that we used in our consultation on the contaminated sites bill, and I'm glad to see that now we've turned it around in this House, and the opposition parties are applauding. I'm very pleased to see that.
This legislation will improve environmental assessment in B.C. and ensure that our natural environment is sustained to provide a more certain climate for investment and business opportunities. Let me compare and contrast the existing requirements for environmental assessment of major developments with requirements and processes contained in this bill. Currently, projects may be reviewed through three processes. One of these processes, the major project review process, is not legislated; it is only government policy. This bill creates a single comprehensive environmental assessment process for all major developments. This will provide equitable assessment for projects regardless of what industry sector they are in. The current process assesses the environmental, economic and social effects of major developments. The proposed legislation maintains this integrated approach.
Under the current process, key decisions involved both the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and the minister responsible for the project sector. This legislation maintains this joint decision-making model by requiring that the responsible minister join with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks on decisions to approve, reject or refer a project to the environmental assessment board. The existing review processes are not consistent. The proposed legislation guarantees public access to information on projects being reviewed, and clearly defines opportunities for public involvement.
The legislation clearly complements the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The existing review processes do not contain time frames for actions to be taken by either the public or government. The proposed legislation guarantees the public an opportunity to comment on documents by specifying a period in which comments must be received. Moreover, the proposed legislation requires that time frames for government action be set in regulations to ensure government accountability. The existing processes are administered using limited staff resources in three different provincial ministries. The proposed legislation establishes a single, neutral office to ensure the efficient delivery of the process.
The current processes do not contain a specific mechanism for coordinating provincial requirements with those of the federal government, a point which the opposition parties have conveniently forgotten. The proposed legislation specifically enables the province to enter into an agreement with the federal government to provide a window of opportunity for one review of a project by both governments.
Finally, the current processes do not guarantee an opportunity for direct representation on the project committee by the federal government, local governments or first nations to participate in the review of projects that may affect their respective interests. The inclusion of first nations is particularly important as it recognizes their interest in ensuring effective environmental assessment, and strongly supports government policy on recognition of their role in decisions that may affect them.
I need not elaborate on the consequences of not making these reforms. We know that the opposition parties want to delay bringing forward this process even though it was advocated by the West Coast Environmental Law Association and by representatives of many different industry stakeholders. They are asking for consultation; and, yes, that is being provided. We are going to listen to them. Unfortunately, we are not receiving the kind of creative suggestions coming forward from the opposition. We are receiving them from industry itself, and we look forward to dealing with that very constructively.
It's going to be very interesting to take from Hansard the comments of the various opposition Environment critics and mail them to the numerous groups that are out there. They will, I think, be appalled to find -- as my hon. colleague has pointed out -- that they are seeking to rise up from Jurassic Park. I think it's kind of unfortunate that the opposition parties have failed to recognize the green ethic that has emerged in business and industry and have chosen to isolate themselves in the way that they have. Clearly they have not researched the issue. Industry wants environmentally responsible legislation and regulations and does not want to be jerked around by political whims the way it was with Social Credit. Clearly industry does not want to dither the way the Liberals want to; they want to know where they stand and to see this process as soon as is reasonably possible.
Hon. Speaker, it is my honour to....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: It is my honour to now move second reading of the bill.
The Speaker: A point of order has been raised.
[ Page 7165 ]
J. Tyabji: As the Environment critic, I just want to set the record straight under standing order 43. Two things that the minister mentioned that we didn't stand for are: any reduction of provincial sovereignty on environmental resources, and we don't abrogate our environmental responsibility.
The Speaker: Thank you for that comment. Unfortunately, hon. member, that standing order can only be used to directly correct a misquote.
We have before you the motion....
Interjections.
The Speaker: With due respect, hon. member, the Speaker has already ruled on that point of order.
The motion before you....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I call the House to order.
Interjections.
The Speaker: The motion before you is second reading of Bill 32.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 30 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
| Edwards | Cashore | Barlee |
| Beattie | Schreck | Lali |
| Conroy | Miller | Hagen |
| Gabelmann | Clark | Cull |
| Zirnhelt | Blencoe | Barnes |
| Lovick | Ramsey | Pullinger |
| Evans | Doyle | Streifel |
| Lord | Randall | Garden |
| Kasper | Brewin | Janssen |
|
NAYS -- 16 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Reid |
Gingell |
| Dalton | Wilson | Hanson |
| Weisgerber | Tyabji | K. Jones |
| Jarvis | Anderson | Hurd |
| Tanner | Symons | Neufeld |
Bill 32, Environmental Assessment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 36.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 36 makes a variety of amendments to the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act, the Financial Information Act, the Home Purchase Assistance Act, the Hospital District Finance Act, the Real Estate Act, the School District Capital Finance Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act. It truly is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.
The Educational Institution Capital Finance Act, the Hospital District Finance Act and the School District Capital Finance Act each establish corporations which provide financing for capital construction projects. This is one of the geniuses of W.A.C. Bennett. These bills were passed in about 1967. The amendments to these acts enable the board of directors of each corporation to delegate specific financial transactions to the respective chair or secretary of the boards. This is totally to simplify administrative procedures and make borrowing transactions more efficient. These amendments do not in any way restrict the powers of the board of each authority, nor do these amendments affect the accountability of the boards to the general public.
[9:30]
The proposed amendments to the Financial Information Act simply update the schedules under the act, which require certain bodies to make financial information about their operations public. Minor housekeeping amendments also clarify section 5 of the act.
The amendments to the Home Purchase Assistance Act extend the province's ability to file a certificate in court for unpaid B.C. second mortgages if the mortgage property is lost due to seizure or court-ordered sale. This amendment is in keeping with the spirit of the legislation and legalizes administrative practices that have been undertaken since the passage of the act. It is a legal housekeeping change suggested by legislative counsel.
Bill 36 amends the Real Estate Act to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to directly appoint two members-at-large to the Real Estate Council of British Columbia. This is not housekeeping; this is a genuine policy change that adds two lay governors to the Real Estate Council. I want to say that this is supported by the Real Estate Council of British Columbia. All self-regulatory bodies have been approached and are supportive of having public governors. This is a very good public policy that exists in other jurisdictions, and I think it enhances the stature of the Real Estate Council. The vast majority of members are members of the profession who, while appointed by order-in-council, are in fact usually elected by the self-regulatory body. This enables the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to put two lay people on the board, which is generally good policy.
I don't mind saying that there isn't a consistent policy in this regard. There have been moves to increase lay governors, as they call them, to beyond the two. So this a modest step in that direction; other legislation
[ Page 7166 ]
and other public bodies have more than this. But in keeping with discussions with the Real Estate Council, it's a positive direction.
There are three amendments to the Social Service Tax Act contained in Bill 36. These are primarily administrative; however, two are more substantive. One is an important section. For the purposes of the Social Service Tax Act, the person who obtains a grant under the homeowner grant or is a beneficiary under the Medical and Health Care Services Act and is a resident of the province is required to pay sales tax on goods brought into the province. Just to clarify it in English for members, if you're declaring the homeowner.... We have a situation now where if someone is declaring the homeowner grant as their primary residence and is therefore getting that tax break, but then will argue that their residence is in Alberta for the purpose of getting the sales tax rebate, because they don't pay sales tax there. All we're saying is that if you declare that your residence is in British Columbia for the sake of getting your homeowner grant, or if you declare your residency to be in British Columbia in order to be eligible for the medical plan in British Columbia, you cannot then declare that your residency is in Alberta for the purpose of the sales tax exemption. Essentially that's the loophole that this bill closes, and I think it's reasonable.
A second amendment to the Social Service Tax Act reduces the period for payment of estimated tax assessments from 30 to 15 days. These are also substantive amendments, because there are amendments to the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act which replace the current election procedures with a provision for the direct appointment by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of six public governors to the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Currently the situation is that the board itself will nominate six public governors, and then they will be referred to the minister responsible. The minister responsible is supposed to then approve them by order-in-council, and then they go back to the exchange to be elected. That's a cumbersome procedure. It's a sort of double-veto situation. We're just cleaning it up and saying no, they're public governors and they should be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in order to give the public some comfort that they genuinely reflect the public interest.
Again, the Vancouver Stock Exchange have been excellent in my discussions with them and have not been opposed to this amendment. It doesn't increase the number of public governors; it just simplifies their appointment provisions. I'd be happy to talk to Social Credit members about some appointments I've made, like Mr. Couvelier did, to the stock exchange and about the ability of the government to make those appointments.
In addition, as members know, we've appointed an inquiry into the VSE. Mr. Matkin, another well-known supporter of the government, has been appointed to review the operations.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Matkin is doing an excellent job of doing a public review to enhance public confidence in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I think all members are supportive of that initiative. The stock exchange will pay 85 percent of the cost of any inquiry that the Minister of Finance may appoint. Again, the exchange has been surprisingly supportive of this endeavour, because they know that anything we do to enhance public confidence in the market in British Columbia will be good for the market. I want to be candid. I think that the cost of some $500,000 is significant. I don't think they are going to hold any parties with this legislation. But they have also been very supportive in discussions -- publicly and privately -- about this initiative. And as you know, they've been very supportive of Mr. Matkin's appointment and the review which is actually just getting well underway. I'd be glad to talk about that later on.
F. Gingell: I must agree with the minister that much of this is housekeeping. If we could think of some better ways to appoint these public governors, I would like to do that. I thoroughly agree with the minister that they shouldn't be appointed by the other governors of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. But I'd like to find some way other than them all being clearly provincial government appointments. I don't know what it is, but somehow over the last year and a half I've had a feeling that some of these appointments aren't made in the true spirit in which we'd like to see some of them made. Besides that, an employee of this government is responsible for making some 4,000 appointments to various boards and commissions. I guess that number now goes up to 4,006. But I do agree with the principle that there has to be some better means of making those appointments than the way it's presently done.
I am really pleased to see that the necessary changes are being made to the Real Estate Act, to change the word "salesman" to "salesperson," the word "salesman's" to "salesperson's" and the plural from "salesmen" to "salespersons." It's necessary for us to get government legislation corrected into its true form of English, as it is now spoken by this government.
I noticed that the Minister of Finance passed over one very important section here -- section 15 -- which reduces the period of time in which the payment of an estimated assessment can be made from 30 days to 15 days. I can tell that the minister has never been in business, because had he been in business and received one of these assessments from the provincial consumer tax branch, he would know that they are usually so outrageous and so outlandish that it takes the poor recipient of the assessment about ten days to get over the shock of receiving it. They would then be left with the problem of having only a few days left -- possibly no days left, because the mail isn't exactly that swift -- to arrange the necessary financing.
I know that I spoke of that in a light fashion, but 15 days really isn't a long period of time, from the dating of an assessment to the required payment date. This is not the payment of the regularly collected sales tax
[ Page 7167 ]
that one has to pay by the 15th day of the following month. This is where an assessor has come in and done an audit of your books, and may well have gone back over ten years. The department of consumer taxes is not known to worry about the statute of limitations, and they go back for long periods of time.
As the minister knows, from some of the people that I've written to him about on sales tax problems, they are complex issues often dealing with very large sums of money, and to expect the business to come up with the money in 15 days from the time of the assessment being prepared is really not a very reasonable arrangement. So I would like to suggest to the minister that he consider changing that, making an amendment to it in committee stage, or perhaps just dropping section 15 and allowing 12(1) to remain worded as giving a 30-day grace period.
I don't have any more comments. The Liberal caucus will support this bill, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to it.
J. Weisgerber: A bill like this normally finds most of the debate in committee stage. If one were looking for the principle of the bill, it doesn't seem to have much of a principle.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in his criticism of the changes to the Social Service Tax Act. I think that 30 days is an appropriate amount of time to give someone who has been assessed under the Social Service Tax Act an opportunity to respond. I recall a time in my past where I spent a busy 30 days correcting the mistakes the assessor made in order to reduce the amount of the assessment by about a thousandfold. It would have been very difficult for me at that time to have paid the full amount of the assessment and then appeal and get a refund, and 30 days did allow me an opportunity to point out that there had been significant errors made in the assessment and the penalties imposed. We will want to spend some time talking about this section, and I would join in urging the government to stand this down. I don't think it's appropriate, I don't think it serves a purpose, and I haven't heard anything from the government to suggest any rational argument for reducing the period of time to 15 days, unless the assessors under the Social Service Tax Act don't want to give people an opportunity to argue and debate the assessments or look for ways to reduce the size of the assessment.
[9:45]
The changes to the Vancouver Stock Exchange are interesting, and I have some sympathy with the government's wish to change the appointment process to the exchange. I'm not sure that simply appointing six governors by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the right answer. There might be other ways to achieve what the minister wanted. I think a percentage of the public governors being appointed by the Crown and a number elected by the exchange might be a more equitable way. And I hope that it's not because of the government's need to keep Mr. Pollard busy justifying his considerable salary by selecting patronage appointments.
We will be particularly interested in the method by which the Matkin inquiry is set out. It seems to me that it would have been perfectly logical to have appointed Mr. Matkin under the Inquiry Act and to use the provisions of that act to finance the appointment. If the government had gone to the exchange and said, "We think it is in our mutual best interests to call an inquiry into the actions of the exchange; will you cooperate with us or consult with us in the establishment of an inquiry?" it might have been appropriate to then say to the exchange: "You should also share in the costs of this inquiry." But the government seems to want it both ways. It simply announces to the VSE that there is going to be an inquiry and that the exchange is going to pay for it. One might say: "Hey, it's stockbrokers, and no one has any sympathy for them." But this could be the start of a new direction that various organizations may well look at with some concern.
The minister noted in his opening remarks that we're talking about half a million dollars. We're talking about 46 member firms of the exchange, less than half of whom are resident in or have their headquarters in B.C. In the legislation the minister provides for a variance in the levies so that the exchange can levy heavier dues on the members in B.C. That's what I read into that. I'm not sure this is the kind of action that will encourage brokerage firms to establish themselves in B.C., and I'm not sure the exchange is in a position to equitably assess all of its members the costs of the inquiry. There are some real questions about the process. I suppose taxpayers should take some comfort in the fact that the exchange, rather than the taxpayer, is being asked to pay for the inquiry. The point that I made, and the point that I think is important, is that if you're going to ask or demand that the exchange pick up the costs, then I think some more consultation prior to the announcement and the appointment would have been appropriate.
This is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. We've seen from time to time that those bear the greatest scrutiny, but we'll try to put this legislation under that kind of scrutiny when we get to committee stage.
The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.
Hon. G. Clark: There have been some specific questions on specific sections. I'll be delighted to deal with them in committee stage. With that I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 36, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading on Bill 40.
[ Page 7168 ]
CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. G. Clark: This bill increases the exemption threshold for the corporation capital tax to $1.25 million of paid-up capital from $1 million of paid-up capital. In other words, it's good news, members. It also implements numerous technical changes to the capital tax. Many of these changes were recommended by the corporation capital tax technical committee, an industry-government group convened to provide the government with advice on technical improvements to the capital tax. The exemption threshold was originally established so that 80,000 companies, or roughly 80 percent of the companies in the province, would not be liable for the capital tax. This was to reduce the compliance burden for small business. A review of representations made by small business and organizations representing small business has convinced the government that an increase in the exemption threshold to $1.25 million is warranted.
This increase in the exemption level will make about 2,000 additional corporations exempt from the capital tax. Previously the tax was phased in for taxpayers with paid-up capital of between $1 million and $1.25 million. The tax will now be phased in between $1.25 million and $1.5 million. As a result, a further 1,500 firms will see a reduction in their capital tax liability, and government revenues will fall by about $6 million per year as a result of the increase in the exemption threshold.
The technical changes to the capital tax are designed to improve the fairness of the tax and reduce its compliance burden, particularly on small business. These changes are estimated to reduce revenue from the tax by about $1 million per year. And we will now in this bill be exempting housing cooperatives, apartment corporations, mortgage investment corporations and bankrupt corporations from the capital tax, allowing non-resident corporations to use branch financial statements in calculating their tax liability, eliminating the double taxation which could arise from the use of capital leases and extending the two-year tax holiday available under section 14 for eligible expenditures in British Columbia to lessors, where an asset is leased into an eligible activity through an operating lease.
In summary, the bill increases the fairness and workability of the corporation capital tax. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
F. Gingell: Kindhearted or mellow as I'm feeling at this time of night, it's impossible to be mellow when we get up to debate the corporate capital tax -- literally the worst piece of legislation that this Minister of Finance has brought in. By bringing in this legislation in the first place, by creating a corporate capital tax in this province, he caused his Premier to lose face in the markets of Asia. In the Far East where the Premier had been and made certain statements, this Minister of Finance broke the Premier's word.
When I get down to what is actually involved in this act in second reading, basically our caucus will support it. The minister spoke very briefly, without being particularly clear, about apartment corporations. My understanding is that he's only talking about strata-type corporations or what you might call owner-occupied apartments or condominiums. The minister, in agreeing to that change -- and that change is obviously fair, because the corporation is just a means by which a group of people get together to own their homes, each single individual's home probably not being valued at $1 million.... But what is forgotten are all of the rental apartments. Those who are wealthy enough to own their apartments are not going to be taxed, but if you're at the poverty level, or struggling along trying to buy your first house or condominium and you are living in a rented apartment, your landlord could well be subject to this tax. He hasn't been exempted. So your monthly rent is going to be adjusted, as the market always does, to take these costs into account. The poor struggling tenant is probably going to be paying a portion of this tax in the end. As long as an apartment owned by a corporation has a value of more than $1 million, then it will be taxed. I can assure you that that tax will be passed through to the tenants.
Of course, that will only apply in cases where the apartment building is on the books with a net value of more than $1 million. If it was bought 20 years ago and built 20 or 30 years ago, even if it cost $2 million then and it has now depreciated to a value of less than $1 million, you won't pay the tax. But two weeks later the property is sold. Let's just say that the property is worth $2 million. It's still the same building and the same asset. It's sold to a new owner for $2 million. Bingo, the tax comes in. These ridiculous sets of circumstances, depending upon when the property was bought and what value it happens to have on the books, are what cause the tax to be paid or not to be paid.
That sort of taxation causes taxpayers to try to find ways of avoiding taxes. People are much more likely to pay their taxes when they consider everybody is being taxed fairly and everybody is being treated the same. If they see that they are being treated differently from their neighbours, purely and simply because of the date the apartment was purchased, not because of their real value but just because the values happened to be on their books, they have a feeling that they're not being treated fairly.
Whenever we deal with this corporation capital tax, whatever section the minister deals with, it just points out again and again that this tax is unfair. It's an unfair tax not only because it's based on assets or on capital plus long-term debt, rather than on income, but also because everybody is treated based on the historical values of the property the corporation has acquired and not on its fair market value.
I'm very sorry that the minister isn't paying attention at the moment, because this is one of the real problems with this bill. It would be a good thing if instead of listening to his own little advisory committee, he listened to the Finance critic from the opposition, who understands this.
D. Lovick: Are you still working for the same company, Fred?
[ Page 7169 ]
F. Gingell: No, I'm long gone. I'm not on their pension plan, and I don't have any rights to go back. I understand that you have some rights to go back to your position.
The Speaker: Order, please. I call the members to order and remind the hon. member to address his comments to the Chair.
F. Gingell: I certainly hope that the member for Nanaimo is not making the suggestion that I have any conflict or that I am in any way speaking to this bill in order to look after interests I might have. I'm sure that it would be appropriate if he would assure me that he didn't mean that in any way. If he did, hon. Speaker, I'm sure you would find that to be somewhat distasteful.
[10:00]
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that while I have sympathy with your comments, I did not hear the comments of the hon. member in the chamber. I called for order in the chamber so that we could continue to hear the debate.
F. Gingell: Other than wanting to make two issues.... First of all, I believe that the corporation capital tax was a big mistake, one that this province will pay for in the years to come.
The second point I would like to reiterate is that this corporation capital tax has all kinds of problems to do with valuations. It's not a very complex subject. It's really quite simple, and I would have thought that the Minister of Finance would be able to understand it. We are going to take advantage of every opportunity that we have to bring it up. This tax amendment act really does simplify and improve the act from when it was originally written. Again, the Minister of Finance didn't manage to get the bill right the first time. He has to come back one year later with amendments that take up 31 different sections in 25 pages, but basically the 31 sections do make the best of a rather bad job that was done originally, and we will support the passage of this bill.
J. Weisgerber: I, too, have a great deal of difficulty saying anything positive about the corporation capital tax or amendments to the Corporation Capital Tax Act. It is undoubtedly one of the most destructive pieces of legislation the government has ever brought in. It has seriously undermined investor confidence in British Columbia. It is viewed as anti-business tax by an anti-business government. To be able to find in my heart some positive things to say simply because the threshold has been moved from $1 million to $1.25 million is tough to do. It's tough to be at all enthusiastic or excited about the fact that a few less people will get ripped off by a totally unacceptable piece of legislation. The minister smiles and says: "Vote against it." Well, I had no trouble voting against the corporation capital tax when it came in, and I will continue to speak against the corporation capital tax as long as it exists. I can tell you further that as soon as we form government after the next election, we are going to toss this rotten piece of legislation out on its ear. But it's also instructive, hon. Speaker....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Please continue, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: It's interesting to note that one year after the hurried introduction of this corporation capital tax, the government has to come forward with changes of this magnitude. This is the same piece of legislation that the minister so vigorously defended 12 months ago, argued through clause by clause and wouldn't consider any changes to. This is the legislation that the minister was absolutely convinced was good legislation. Today we have a bill of amendments larger than most pieces of legislation we see in this House; it is larger than the amendments that come at the end of 30 or 40 years of most legislation being enforced. Hon. Speaker, the members of the government back bench seem to think that there's something funny about the fact that a year after introducing legislation that is punitive to the business community, the government has to bring in 25 pages with 31 major amendments to the act. They think that there's some humour in that. The government seems to think that there's something funny about having to come back to this Legislature with these kinds of changes. Surely to goodness, hon. Speaker, the government would consider legislation more carefully before it brings it into the House. The government has the habit of cobbling up some legislation to meet the need of the hour, rush it into the Legislature and then come back with significant changes a short time after the legislation has been tabled.
I'm not very enthusiastic about the changes that are being brought in. I guess the only thing you can say is that they are better than the original piece of legislation -- it was a rotten piece of legislation. We said at the time that it was rotten legislation; most corporate citizens in British Columbia told the government that it was rotten legislation; people all over, not only North America but indeed all of the investors in British Columbia believed that this was rotten legislation. The members are getting excited. Perhaps we see again the government's ploy of bringing in a piece of legislation like this at ten minutes to ten in the evening, in the hope that somehow in five minutes the opposition is going to stand up and cheer simply because a bad piece of legislation has been made a tiny bit better. But it doesn't do what it should do: get rid of this tax that's driving business away from British Columbia, adversely affecting the revenues of government, and chasing revenue and investment away from this province. These puny changes are not going to help. These paltry changes to this legislation are not going to solve the core problem with this legislation: it should never have been introduced in the first place.
The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.
[ Page 7170 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I'll just make a few remarks; I can't resist after the last speaker. The member said that we're driving away investment. I hear this often from the opposition: how terrible the investment climate is in British Columbia. Yet every statistic known shows that British Columbia is outperforming every province in Canada and every state in the United States. They're voting with their feet; business people are voting with their feet. People are moving here. Population growth is up 2 or 3 percent. The real estate market is the only appreciating real estate market in the western world. We have investment beyond what we see in other provinces. This is good news. The economy is doing well, in spite of the hole we were left by the previous administration that we're digging our way out of.
Unfortunately, we had to impose some taxes on the business community. The capital tax was one of those, and it's helped deal with our deficit problems. The economy is still doing better than anywhere else in Canada, and we're still strong.
On top of that, this bill is the result of the kind of cooperation between government and business that we'd like to see. We brought in the capital tax, which was exactly the same tax that existed under the Bill Bennett government for a decade. We brought in the same bill that existed under Bill Bennett. The business community complained. They said: "It's not fair. There are all these problems." We set up a technical committee that worked for months on it. We made dozens of changes, all of which are embodied in this legislation as a result of a working group between financial officers in the Ministry of Finance. It cost us $7 million, but it's a $7 million tax break to business, which shows that we're making progress. Three thousand five hundred businesses are better off as a result of this bill. I know that members opposite have concerns about tax on business, and I know, therefore, that they'll vote in favour of this legislation. I move second reading.
Motion approved unanimously on a division.
[10:15]
Bill 40, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I also want to advise members of the House that the reporting out of Committee A, Aboriginal Affairs estimates, by agreement will take place after question period tomorrow. With that, hon. Speaker, and remarkable progress today, I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:58 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 9: minister's office, $311,041 (continued).
V. Anderson: When we finished the other day on Aboriginal Affairs estimates, we had been going through the plan of the ministry, and I believe we had just begun on the aboriginal relations division of that ministry. We had begun to look at the economic initiatives section to get an overview of what is covered within it, a sample of the kind of programs in it, how this is benefiting the aboriginal community and, if we could, how it is benefiting both the on-reserve and off-reserve aboriginal people.
[3:00]
Hon. A. Petter: The aboriginal relations division -- and as the member indicates, I think we're looking at economic initiatives -- has a number of responsibilities. One of the principal responsibilities, as I think I started to mention last day, relates to the First Citizens' Fund -- and the First Citizens' Fund business program in particular -- which is of benefit to aboriginal peoples throughout the province. Both those who live on and off reserve benefit under that program. I can check on the statistics, but it's my impression that it is particularly of benefit to those off reserve. The member, having studied this matter even closer than I have in the last few months for the legislative committee, may have better information on that than I do.
In addition, however, the economic initiatives branch of the division of aboriginal relations is also there to try to assist aboriginal groups -- and again, this would apply to both on- and off-reserve groups -- to pursue economic initiatives that may not fall within the terms of the First Citizens' Fund business program. For example, there may be attempts by certain groups to secure funding from federal and provincial ministries, or to put together some joint venture. Any of those kinds of initiatives are ones that this branch might assist an aboriginal group or first nation in trying to pursue.
I could give some examples of the work that branch has done over the last year. Some of it has certainly involved groups that are on reserve. I can think of the example of the Port Simpson situation. There is an attempt in Port Simpson to try to get some economic development going. That first nation has come to the government to see what might be done in the way of securing some land which the first nation has had an interest in historically and securing some investment
[ Page 7171 ]
funds from the federal government and possibly from the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.
Similarly, I can think of some examples -- for example, the capital corporation that is seeking to set up under the auspices of the Squamish nation and some of the urban-based groups.... The United Native Nations in Vancouver has approached the government. I know that this branch has had a role in facilitating some of their inquiries. So it isn't confined to one or the other; it seeks to assist both the on- and off-reserve populations to promote economic initiatives within the program of the First Citizens' Fund, within the ministry and throughout government, and with private partnerships as well.
V. Anderson: Perhaps we could spend a moment on the First Citizens' Fund. As you are aware, I have been sitting on the committee that deals with the economic aspects of the First Citizens' Fund. Could you comment on the scholarship aspect of the First Citizens' Fund? In our travels we've discovered that this aspect of the fund was not very well known, as the fund itself was not very well known. Has there been any extensive use of the scholarships in the First Citizens' Fund, and is all the fund that is so allocated being used?
Hon. A. Petter: The information I have is that that component of the fund is used but not as much as was anticipated. In 1992-93, $72,100 of the fund was utilized, and we've budgeted for $90,000 this year. But if you look back at last year's budget, you will see that we had anticipated that something in the order of $150,000 might be used.
One of the impediments that stood in the way of those who live off reserve or the urban-based population was that the fund had a restriction that limited it to aboriginal people who were born in B.C. An amendment has been made to facilitate aboriginal people who are now resident in B.C., regardless of where they were born, having access to the fund. It is our expectation that that will make the fund more readily available, particularly to urban-based aboriginal people who may have come into the province but can't claim birth in the province. If we had restricted it to aboriginal people born in the province, there would also have been Charter concerns.
That was one major impediment that has been removed. This component of the fund is utilized, but the member may be right that it isn't as well known as we could make it. Hopefully, with this impediment removed and with better information, it will be better utilized.
V. Anderson: I have two questions. It was my understanding that the fund was limited to university and college students. There had been some suggestion -- and hope -- that it might be available for technical or other kinds of postgraduate education, because that was very limiting. That was the one concern. The other concern is: how does a person "qualify" as an aboriginal for this particular program?
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the first part of the question, it's my understanding that the fund is made available for students attending post-secondary education generally. That might include, say, technical school, provided that it met the definition of being post-secondary in character. My staff informs me, for example, that a student attending the British Columbia Institute of Technology ought to be eligible.
To be eligible for the fund, an individual is required to indicate that they are of aboriginal ancestry, and to which group they belong: M�tis, native Indian or Inuit. They would claim under that category. It essentially leaves that as a matter of self-definition. There has been no indication that that has been abused in any way. If there were, then I suppose that we might have to look at some alternative. Right now it's a matter of self-definition. I understand that a letter of support vouching for that individual is also sought from some aboriginal organization.
V. Anderson: I hope that if the First Citizens' Fund is available for all post-secondary education -- technical, university, community college -- that kind of information would be made available, because my understanding is that even those who tried to access the fund, found that in many areas it did not seem to be accessible to them. So that would be a concern. What amount of money is normally available for a person through this particular scholarship for the first citizens?
Hon. A. Petter: The amounts vary because they're based upon success rates, etc. But the average is in the $700-to-$1,000 range in terms of assistance that's provided, and about 100 students have been beneficiaries over the last two years.
V. Anderson: As I look at the total budget for the First Citizens' Fund, I understand there is a $523,000 decrease this year. You have indicated that there's roughly $60,000 in the scholarship fund which is the decrease....
Hon. A. Petter: It's $90,000.
V. Anderson: Is the $90,000 in the scholarship fund a decrease or not? That's what I am wondering about.
The Chair: Hon. members, for the benefit of Hansard and the rest of the committee, your comments, questions or answers should be directed through the Chair, so they actually become part of the record.
V. Anderson: I heard you say that there had been $150,000 allocated a year ago, and $90,000 this year. So that would be a $60,000 decrease in that particular category. I also heard you say earlier that there had been an increase in funds to the aboriginal community centres. Does this mean, then, that most of the decrease is in the economic development side of the First Citizens' Fund? Is there a particular reason for this decrease?
[ Page 7172 ]
Hon. A. Petter: The reason for the decrease is that we have tried to budget the fund according to the amount of interest generated over the past year, and that has generated less revenue overall because interest rates have been lower for this purpose than we might like. So you're right in suggesting that there will be a slight reduction of $60,000 or so from what was budgeted last year in the student loan program. I guess that was the $60,000 you were referring to. Although there is an increase over the actual take-up last year and the expectation of an increased take-up with the change in the program criteria, there will be a decrease therefore in the business loan program. In that regard, I would simply point out that the business loan program is going through a review under the auspices of the legislative committee and an internal evaluation review as well. But the reason for the decrease is that, because this is a fund that generates interest, we're trying to keep the allocated amount for the fiscal year in accordance with the amount of interest generated.
V. Anderson: In this particular fund related to the First Citizens' Fund, what is the overlap between the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade and the economic areas of your ministry, and what is happening through the other ministries?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, we've been working with the Ministry of Economic Development. I think one of the things that we've tried to change, frankly, is the view, at least in some quarters of government, that because there was a First Citizens' business fund, it in a sense precluded first nations citizens from taking up other opportunities within government. Clearly that's not the intention, at least not of this government. The intention is that the First Citizens' Fund meet certain needs, but there may well be other programs within government that can also be of assistance to first nations or to aboriginal groups. So we've been working with the Economic Development ministry. They have been taking the lead in developing an economic plan to try to address aboriginal economic development. The First Citizens' Fund obviously is a component that the ministry will continue to administer, but they are trying to take a larger view of how government as a whole and their ministry in particular will be able to assist first nations. Then the results of the legislative committee's review will be channelled into that. Hopefully, we will therefore have a more general view of how government at large can assist first nations citizens in pursuing economic development initiatives, using all the programs of government that are available, including but not limited to the First Citizens' Fund.
V. Anderson: The impression I had in raising questions with the Economic Development ministry was the other way around almost -- that the initiative was coming from this ministry and that they were cooperating with the Aboriginal Affairs ministry, but weren't too sure about what was happening or didn't seem to have a plan within the ministry to really include the aboriginal people in that area. Perhaps the reasoning behind some of that was the uncertainty about where treaty negotiations are going.
Might I divert from this at the moment and ask about the negotiations with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs that were publicized last Friday, if you might say something about that? All we've heard of it so far are the newspaper reports, and when we asked last Thursday there wasn't any indication it was that imminent.
Hon. A. Petter: If you check the record for last Thursday, I indicated that by the end of the week we would have initiated some forums with at least one of the first nations groups. So I think I did indicate it was that imminent. But perhaps the confusion arises from the fact that one newspaper headline referred to this as a treaty arrangement, and clearly that's not what it was.
To explain, last Friday we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and we will be signing a similar memorandum with the summit group in the very near future. This basically creates a framework through which there will be meetings from time to time with members of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and members of cabinet to look at policy issues of mutual concern, and then, flowing from that, working groups to examine policy.
[3:15]
As I indicated last week, the idea of these forums is to provide a mechanism, a vehicle, through which we can discuss policy issues of mutual interest in a pre-treaty environment. Because it will be more efficient and more coordinated, it will also enable us to better facilitate third-party consultation concerning any initiatives that come forward.
For example, some of the issues that were discussed last Friday with the union -- and I imagine similar issues will likely be discussed with the summit, because we must make sure we are dealing with all first nations and with the umbrella organizations that represent all first nations -- were issues like the question of road rights-of-way. Can we find a better mechanism than the resumption power which currently exists to deal with road right-of-way issues where negotiations fail? Or can we put in place a better negotiation process so negotiations will succeed? On issues of child welfare, the member will recall that there was a report done last year dealing with child welfare, and a separate component of that report dealing with native child welfare. There were discussions with the union -- and, as I say, similar discussions will take place with the summit -- about whether the recommendations in that report would be viewed favourably by that organization. Work will then be done by working groups that will come back to this group to discuss policy issues.
Flowing from that, if there are to be any policy changes, we will have to undertake consultation with third-party groups. Then any changes in policy will have to come through the normal processes of government -- Treasury Board approval, etc. -- and, should legislation be required, naturally through the Legislature as well. But it does provide us with a very
[ Page 7173 ]
useful forum to deal with policy issues in a more orderly way.
Because the meeting you referred to was with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, it confirms what I said last Thursday, namely, that this government is not trying to shut out any one group. We view our responsibility to all first nations alike. We still believe that even those first nations who may not choose to avail themselves of the Treaty Commission process have an important voice that must be listened to and respected, and this forum is one way in which we intend to do that.
J. Weisgerber: Before we get into this interesting area we were just touching on, I would like to go back to finish off some questions I had with regard to the First Citizens' Fund. Can the minister tell us the composition of the economic advisory board, and what role he sees there? I'm not asking specifically who they are, but more about whether or not the minister is still looking at the regional representative concept for the advisory board. More particularly, what role does he see for the economic advisory committee, given the fact that First Citizens' Fund applications and approvals now are, perhaps appropriately, with All Nations Trust? Maybe the minister could give me a sense of that.
Hon. A. Petter: In general terms, the board continues to be composed on a regional basis. We've tried to find representatives who can represent the region and also bring some expertise to bear. I'm well aware that there has been some excellent input in the past from members of that board. In fact, I attended a very pleasant dinner recently to celebrate the contribution of Stan Dixon and Gerry Asp to the board, both of whom are known to the member.
The board does have a very useful role to play. I'll be looking to the board to play a role when we receive the report from the legislative committee and look at possible changes to the First Citizens' Fund to see if we can improve the way in which it delivers dollars for economic development. The board will clearly have a role there. I'm also going to be meeting with the board in the next week or so -- I'm not sure of the date, but certainly within the next couple of weeks -- to talk more generally about economic development. As we pursue with the Ministry of Economic Development a more general view of how government can serve aboriginal peoples and aboriginal businesses, I'll be looking to the board to provide feedback and advice to my ministry, to the Ministry of Economic Development and to other ministries. It's taken me a while in this role to appreciate a number of the different agencies. I will say frankly that I wasn't as quick on the uptake in appreciating the value of the Native Economic Development Advisory Board as I wish I had been. I have since gotten well-acquainted with the board. I think they do have a useful role to play. They have some excellent new appointments as well. We are looking to this board to provide us with advice on economic matters and give us some advice on how we can better serve aboriginal economic development in the province.
J. Weisgerber: I wonder if the minister could tell us whether any of the new appointees to the board has a mandate to represent either status people who are off-reserve or non-status or M�tis and whether or not he sees the fund applying or being available to non-status and M�tis people.
Hon. A. Petter: The board is still appointed regionally, but some of the appointments do reflect both reserve and off-reserve populations. For example, an appointment for region 2, Mainland-Southwest, was to replace Stan Dixon with Theresa Netsena, coordinator of the Aboriginal Women's Council in Vancouver. I think she is well plugged into some of the concerns of the urban aboriginal community. We have sought representatives who do have different perspectives. We haven't at this stage sought explicitly to build in a representative of either of the communities that the member suggests. I'm certainly prepared to consider that and would welcome any suggestions or input from the member in that regard.
What we've done instead is try to look at the various regions to balance among the regions and also, in our appointees, try to get people of varying backgrounds and outlets to reflect the differing points of view.
J. Weisgerber: Just to clarify the position with regard to non-status M�tis, does the minister have any thoughts on eligibility for post-secondary grants for business start-up funding and those kinds of applications of the fund?
Hon. A. Petter: It's within the current criteria that M�tis are eligible for both the student loans and the business grants. I think one of the prohibitions that may have stood in the way of many M�tis in the past was the requirement of birth in British Columbia. That was changed, and that may well make the program more accessible than was previously the case. Certainly we do see this fund and the ministry's role in relation to economic development as sufficiently broad to encompass M�tis people. It may be that for that reason we should look at the composition of the Native Economic Development Advisory Board and reflect that reality as well. It hasn't been done to date, except in trying to ensure that there is this as-broad-as-possible representation within each of the regions.
J. Weisgerber: Just to finish up on that, the requirement with regard to birth in British Columbia was changed while I was the minister, if I remember correctly. While I'm on my feet, I might say that those changes particularly affect many of the people I represent. Many of the people of the northeast travel back and forth between British Columbia and Alberta. It's a rather unnatural boundary in that particular place, and many of my own constituents were adversely affected by that particular ruling.
Have there been any significant take-ups from non-status people in the area of education? Have you any sense of whether or not kids going on to post-secondary education are aware of their ability to apply and qualify?
[ Page 7174 ]
Hon. A. Petter: Just to correct the member, I'm certainly aware that the member advocated that change. In fact, it didn't get onto the legislative agenda until the last legislative session under this government. So the change was only made a number of months ago, and I think it's too early to tell. However, the member makes a good point in the sense that I think we do have a good reason to make known this change so that people who previously might not have been eligible will become aware that they are. In terms of tracking whether or not there has been a difference, I think it's simply been too recent. I think it was one of the last bills passed in the last legislative session -- as a result of recommendations that flowed from the previous government.
J. Weisgerber: To perhaps move on to the issue that was being discussed a bit earlier, the recent memorandum of understanding with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, I understand from the minister's comments that he's planning to sign a similar memorandum of understanding with the summit. I wonder if he's also planning to sign memoranda of understanding with bands that aren't aligned with either or those organizations. Has the minister been able to identify the alignment of or the membership in those two organizations? Who belongs to which organization and who doesn't belong to either?
Hon. A. Petter: One can't identify as an exact science who belongs or doesn't belong to those two organizations from time to time. I think we are aware that between those two there is certainly representation of the vast majority of first nations -- but not necessarily of all. In pursuing any policy changes, however, we want to make sure that we consult as widely as possible. It may be that we will have to -- and indeed, want to -- seek representations from other first nations that are not aligned with either group. The Sechelt is one; I can think of a few others. We may want to enter into some kind of relationship with the Treaty 8 group as well, because of their unusual status as treaty first nations. Indeed, we have established a relationship with the Treaty 8 that is somewhat different than this one, but which will facilitate some discussions.
So the idea of these memoranda of understanding is to try to provide a forum in which we can discuss issues of mutual concern with as many first nations as possible in the most efficient way. But the hon. member is right in pointing out that we can't be certain that we have consulted with all first nations. We will have to make sure that those first nations that aren't represented have opportunities for access and input, particularly for policies that may have a direct impact upon them.
J. Weisgerber: The Sechelt situation -- and particularly the situation with the Sechelt comprehensive land claim -- would probably be better addressed at some other point in the estimates. I will look forward to doing that at some point when we get to treaty negotiations as a subject of its own.
I was curious about the minister's comments with regard to the memorandum of understanding and the range of issues that were going to be touched on. One of the issues that he mentioned was resumption. It seemed to fall at a time when, once again, we are hearing about roadblocks and blockades, and concerns over gazetted rights-of-way -- those kinds of issues. I wonder if the minister could give us the current position that his ministry and the government take with regard to resumption.
Hon. A. Petter: On the first point, while I'd be happy to reiterate points that I've made earlier, the hon. member might wish to refer to some interchange I had on Thursday with the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast in which we dealt in some detail with the position of the Sechelt band and their comprehensive claim. If the hon. member wants to explore that later, we can do so, but he may find that interchange instructive.
[3:30]
With respect to the road right-of-way situation, as the hon. member is aware, there are hundreds of roads throughout the province that may not have been on, or may have come off, their original alignments. Parts of the roads may be in trespass; in some cases roads or portions thereof are in trespass in their entirety. Our policy with respect to those is to seek negotiated solutions and to try to work through negotiation to ensure that powers, such as those of resumption, do not have to be deployed. However, we recognize that negotiation may not always succeed. For that reason we would like to find some mechanism that can work better than the resumption power does to achieve the objectives of ensuring that there is access across essential roadways, while at the same time respecting aboriginal rights and entitlements. For example, one glaring feature of the resumption power right now is that it has no provision for compensation, which is really quite an extraordinary and, I would argue, an outrageous situation, that land could be taken from first nations without there even being the same provisions for protection and compensation that are enjoyed by other property owners in this province. So what we are going to try to do is seek some mechanism that will hopefully facilitate negotiations, but also will recognize -- in the event that negotiations do not succeed -- that there is some process in place which respects the legitimate interests of first nations better than the current resumption power does.
J. Weisgerber: Certainly the use of resumption has always been -- and, I expect, always will be -- a last-resort solution. Everyone looks to negotiated settlements and solutions as the preferred way of dealing with road right-of-way disputes -- and almost every other kind of dispute I can think of.
In my experience, one of the difficulties with resolving issues concerning the lack of gazettes on rights-of-way is the inability to obtain a survey. There is often a position taken that the road is not on the right-of-way, and there is often good reason to believe that this allegation is correct. One of the things needed to effect a solution is to get an accurate survey of where the road right-of-way exists, and where the road right-of-way or even where the road itself is in trespass.
[ Page 7175 ]
But often in these disputes you can't even obtain permission to have an accepted survey completed. Was that subject broached in the minister's early discussions with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs? What are his plans to deal with this kind of catch-22 situation that has been a real impediment to finding solutions?
Hon. A. Petter: There are a number of problems that frequently arise for the Ministry of Highways in negotiating these matters. Certainly one of them is the type of dispute the member points to, where it's difficult to obtain a survey and to get accurate information. Other disagreements are often over what is being negotiated -- whether it's simply the right-of-way issue or a larger constellation of issues. Indeed, there are disagreements about what the compensation is being sought for. As we move toward the comprehensive treaty negotiation process, some of the pressure may come off those road right-of-way negotiations, in the sense that there may be less incentive for first nations to fold into those negotiations other complaints that can be more properly dealt with as part of a comprehensive claim or in some other forum. However, I think the kind of process we would be looking to through mutual agreement with first nations would be one in which there would be a process that hopefully would address some of these impediments.
In specific answer to your question, all that was really raised at this inaugural meeting with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs was an agenda of issues that we mutually agreed to as being appropriate for discussion by officials, who will then come back and present to the policy forum a range of options. So that specific matter wasn't raised. But the member can be sure that it will be raised as part of the considerations that we'll want to see addressed in a process that, hopefully, will better effect solutions and resolutions of these outstanding issues.
J. Weisgerber: I wish I could share the minister's optimism that land claims and treaty negotiations are somehow going to take the pressure off road right-of-way disputes. The minister's quite right: it's often hard to tell whether the issue in question is the right-of-way per se, or whether it's the only available pressure point for the band to draw attention to a whole range of grievances that it might have over land use issues, resource extraction and the like.
The reason that I don't share the minister's optimism is that it seems to me that a high percentage of these disputes involve bands that are aligned with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. To my knowledge, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs hasn't -- by this process -- indicated any movement toward the comprehensive treaty negotiation process. So I don't see the potential for land claims and resolution in treaty negotiations as being much of a relief valve in areas with bands involving the union.
Hon. A. Petter: I look at the road right-of-way disputes I've been familiar with, and I wouldn't characterize them as falling particularly to union bands. There have been disputes I'm aware of, in Gitsegukla and Kispiox and elsewhere, where those first nations clearly do look to the Treaty Commission process. However, the member makes a good point: for union bands the Treaty Commission may not be a process that -- at least in the short term -- will relieve the situation. But I think the member also makes a good point when he says that dispute over right-of-way has historically been the only outlet or pressure point.
As a government we're trying to deal with a range of issues, some in the context of treaty negotiations and some in the pre-treaty context. The very forum we're talking about now is a forum in which policy issues that might otherwise be identified as part of a road dispute or some other issue can now be dealt with in their own right. In addition, other ministries of government are trying to better relate to first nations to provide economic opportunities we've talked about in the past. We have a forestry council seeking to work with first nations and private industry to effect joint ventures and cooperation.
So I hope we can -- not only through treaty negotiation, but also through a range of initiatives and processes such as the one we're discussing now -- take the pressure off any one point. Road disputes can become road disputes, and we can deal with them as road disputes. Then they're more likely to be resolvable. But I take the member's point. In some cases it may not be through treaty negotiations, at least in the short term, but hopefully it'll be through one of these other processes or mechanisms.
J. Weisgerber: It seems to me also that, while the pressure point is available to the band to bring attention to their concerns, at the end of the day the ultimate weapon or remedy for the province is the resumption clause, which applies to many, if not all, of the rights-of-way or bands. The minister indicates that he would look for alternative mechanisms. I'd like to know first of all whether or not he at least recognizes that resumption is a legal mechanism the province has available. Secondly, I guess it's important for me to recognize that only once in the last many years has resumption ever been used in British Columbia. I know it was used with the Mount Currie band in that particular road dispute. Other than that, I don't think resumption has been used in modern history. It's always been there as a kind of balance to the threat of closing roads. I'm just curious to know whether the minister acknowledges that.
Hon. A. Petter: It was used subsequently to Mount Currie in the Boothroyd situation, I'm informed, but we can check on that. It's my sense that, yes, there is a resumption power. There has been a court challenge to it, but at this point the power still exists in the form of an order-in-council. I'm not going to answer the hypothetical question of whether, and under what circumstances, it would be used. I think uncertainty may be the more effective incentive in this regard. Also, I fear that once one starts using the resumption power it becomes the norm, not the exception, and that incentives to negotiate may be less rather than more. I would prefer to seek the positive alternatives to the use
[ Page 7176 ]
of the resumption power, both through negotiation and possibly through the creation of some new, mutually acceptable mechanism. That could involve elements that, I think the member would agree, are pretty basic to any power which revolves land, land that currently exists with one owner coming into the ownership of someone else -- for example, due process compensation. So I will decline to answer the hypothetical question. I will recognize that the power is there and that it has been subject to some legal uncertainty. I will continue to advocate that we find some alternative and not be placed in a situation -- and this is a message I give to first nations as well -- where we have to address our minds to the possible use of the resumption power, because I think its use is detrimental not only to those against whom it's used but against society as a whole. It is not a power any of us can be particularly proud seeing used. It is a sign of failure rather than one of any kind of success.
J. Weisgerber: I tend to agree with the minister. It's a power that is very draconian in its measures and certainly doesn't provide any compensation. If the minister is talking about moving to an agreement that would be legally binding -- which I think would be the difficulty -- if you could implement an expropriation process that would stand up.... The only thing that resumption has going for it is that it was enacted at the time that many of the reserves were established and, as such, has in itself a power that came with the creation of the reserves. If there were a way to develop an expropriation process that would work, I don't think there would be many who would argue about expropriation with appropriate compensation being a more reasonable way to go forward. If the minister decides to introduce something that would be essentially a power of expropriation, he could rest assured that he would have my support and, I am sure, the support of our caucus.
Hon. A. Petter: We are intending to raise this issue and, hopefully, to negotiate some resolution. I would just point out -- by way of illustration of how people tend to become attached to powers, even though they are draconian -- that other provinces do not have the resumption power and, by and large, seem to manage. Because they don't have the resumption power, perhaps they have been less cavalier in the way they have dealt with road right-of-way issues -- and they don't have the hundreds of potential claims outstanding. Be that as it may, I appreciate the member's constructive suggestions and an indication that he and his caucus would welcome an alternative mechanism.
J. Weisgerber: The minister, in fairness, will also recognize the uniqueness of British Columbia in terrain and in the number of reserves and their strategic location with regard to transportation corridors, and he will agree that there aren't really any parallels that can be drawn with areas that have numbered treaties -- the Prairies, for example. The kinds of difficulties in relocating around a reserve rather than through it don't have parallels in any other jurisdiction I'm aware of in the country. I would accept that there aren't resumption powers in other jurisdictions, but I don't think there are the same kinds of issues in other jurisdictions, either.
Hon. A. Petter: I will accept that politics is always more difficult in British Columbia.
V. Anderson: I gather the hon. minister is talking not just about terrain but about the people of British Columbia.
Hon. A. Petter: Everything.
V. Anderson: Focusing back again, we were talking about economic development and looking at community. Part of the First Citizens' Fund, and of the programs I've been hearing about in part through the Economic Development ministry, has been focused on our model of individual entrepreneurs setting up and developing their own businesses, as against a community of aboriginal people -- whether it is one model in the band area or another model of the urban-area people coming together within the city to work as a community of people. I was wondering about how the programs are geared to helping the community work together, apart from just the individual entrepreneurs who may develop their own particular businesses.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I agree with the member that many of the programs of government -- and indeed, the First Citizens' Fund itself -- are geared to individual entrepreneurship more than to collective entrepreneurship. I think that some of the capital corporations that have been established throughout the province -- the Burns Lake Native Development Corp. and some of the others -- are evidence of a more collective approach. They have received support from government at various times -- not always monetary support, but support in terms of seeking joint ventures and other initiatives.
[3:45]
One thing I would caution the member or myself, in our enthusiasm for assisting first nations, is to remember that when we're dealing with on-reserve communities, the federal government bears the primary responsibility in terms of fostering economic development on reserves. I am very wary of directing initiatives to reserves, when the impact may simply be that the federal government withdraws. If we add a dollar and the federal government withdraws a dollar, then no one is better off -- except perhaps the taxpayers outside British Columbia. So we've moved cautiously in the area of economic development on reserves, mindful of the federal government's primary responsibility, although certain programs and assistance we have provided, in terms of advice and joint-venturing, speak to first nations on reserve.
I very recently met with representatives of the Burns Lake Native Development Corp. and, as I mentioned before, with proponents of a capital corporation in the lower mainland, in order to encourage them and to see how government can assist them in pooling capital in
[ Page 7177 ]
ways that provide a more corporate -- in the small-c sense of the word -- perspective to facilitate economic development. But let's not forget that the federal government does bear the primary responsibility, for those on reserve in particular.
V. Anderson: Two items come up from previous discussions. One is that we acknowledge that the First Citizens' scholarship fund is aimed primarily at postgraduate studies of one kind or another. Many of the jobs and opportunities will be in carpentry, woodworking or whatever, and a lot of them are in craft areas for women as well as for men. What kind of program is there for development in education, training and experience, other than the university postgraduate programming?
Hon. A. Petter: By and large, in terms of specific programs for first nations citizens, there isn't much outside the post-secondary area, although some things do come to mind. Some post-secondary institutions try to provide programs of a more practical, applied bent. I think of the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology and some of the other smaller aboriginal educational institutions, which very often have affiliation agreements with community colleges and receive funding on an FTE basis in recognition of that. Also, the First Nations Forestry Council, which has recently been established, was given a mandate to develop proposals for first nations participation in educational programs in forestry. In addition, some of the funding that has been directed toward the B.C. 21 initiative is specifically geared to providing training for groups that have traditionally not been included as they ought to have been, in terms of their representative numbers in the workforce. For example, the silviculture initiative and other initiatives under B.C. 21 will be directed at aboriginal peoples, in recognition of the fact that there is a very high unemployment rate and a lack of skills opportunities for aboriginal peoples. So in a number of those ways the government is starting to address the gap that does exist by providing more applied skills programming for first nations citizens, but not in the same systematic way that we have tried to do it through the First Citizens' Fund program.
V. Anderson: When I look at the different parts of the program we will be going through, one of the areas that's not there is education initiatives. There are economic and social initiatives, but education initiatives aren't there. And yet, whether it's in education initiatives by aboriginal people -- understanding their own educational system and need and culture.... Or are aboriginal initiatives needed in order for them to fit into the western education system? Even the ability to read and write and to have basic public school and high school education.... As we visited those where some of the programs were most important and basic to economic development.... Is there anything within the Aboriginal Affairs ministry to work with the basics of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal education, both of which are necessary for these people in our society?
Hon. A. Petter: I can think of a number of initiatives. There are a number of areas in which my ministry is working with the Ministry of Advanced Education or the Ministry of Education in trying to pursue some of the concerns that the member has raised. For example, the master tuition agreement, which is the agreement that governs the delivery of education services to status Indians in the province through the federal government, expired some months ago and is subject to renegotiation. We have been working with the federal government and first nations to try to identify how we will rework that and lead to a negotiation for reworking the master tuition agreement.
One of the concerns around the master tuition agreement was a process one, but it leads very quickly to the substantive concerns of the member. At the last negotiation the first nations were not represented, and for that reason first nations feel that many of their concerns -- the nature of educational services provided, the kinds of flexibility, the kinds of sensitivity to cultural needs and the autonomy that may be necessary in some communities -- are not adequately addressed in the current funding arrangements.
There is also a feeling that we have to better define the role -- or non-role -- of the province in all of this. It is my perception that first nations in this province do not receive as much in the way of services funded by the federal government as they do in other provinces. Therefore the provincial government has had to fill that gap and has had less dollars to supplement in other areas where it might.
So that whole master tuition agreement and its renegotiation provides a context in which we, along with first nations and the federal government, will be addressing issues of the kind the hon. member raises with respect to the K-to-12 system. For example, that was one of the issues addressed with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on Friday. It will be addressed with the summit group as well, although this issue has also been one of ongoing discussion and concern over the past number of months.
The First People's Heritage, Language and Culture Council operates as a separate agency, but is responsible to the ministry. It was established by the previous government -- although with some support and urging from the party that I represent. It provides funding for cultural facilities and programs, and as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, there has been some capital funding for a number of very excellent institutions, such as the Secwepemc. I really encourage the hon. member, if he hasn't had a chance, to visit this museum in Kamloops. It will now be expanded and opened up not only for aboriginal people but, as the member suggests, for the community at large, as a far more inclusive facility for sharing aboriginal culture and history and enhancing communications. So both the capital and the program funding provided by the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council, I think, are of assistance in this area. We are continuing the program that was initiated by the previous government.
[ Page 7178 ]
Thirdly -- and I'll stop with this -- I have been working with the Minister of Advanced Education to see if we can come up with a better framework for facilitating and encouraging aboriginal education, whether it's called post-secondary or not. Some institutions are doing amazing things with very few dollars. The Nicola Valley Institute, which I had the opportunity to visit, is one such example. There is an aboriginal educational institution in Vancouver -- another such example. The amount of program services that are provided by some of those institutions, for the dollars they receive, is truly extraordinary. I would like to see us pay greater attention and give greater support to these institutes -- if we can't do it financially, at least we can do it in other ways -- to encourage them in the fine work that they're performing. The Nicola Valley Institute, for example, has very impressive job placement rate figures, versus other post-secondary institutions whose programs aren't as well directed to the needs of aboriginal people. So in those three areas, yes, things are happening and we are working with other ministries.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, because it seemed to me, as we travelled around -- and in my previous experience with aboriginal people -- that the whole educational system is key to whatever else is happening. I know that in the Vancouver school system the interrelationship -- or the lack of it, as it happens in particular classrooms -- is a very great concern to both the aboriginal students and their families and to the non-aboriginal educational system. That is a focal point out of which much else could be developed. I've also had time in past days to visit the aboriginal educational resource centre in Vancouver out in the Mount Pleasant area. That's an excellent program that has done a lot of good work -- I might say, with very limited resources -- and feeling most of the time that they were working against the system and that the system was anything but helpful to them. I'm sure they would be encouraged by that support in that regard.
Moving along, though -- and still tying it back to the First Citizens' Fund -- at one point the First Citizens' Fund gave grants to cultural community programs rather than to economic development. That keeps arising because that's the context in which I first knew that program. It seemed to me to come to the fore again in working with the M�tis community. I hear that the struggle, on the one hand, to discover themselves as a friendship society, as a kind of cultural organization as well as an economic one.... For that particular group or for urban people, support in the cultural area, again, may be as important as it is in the economic area. I'm interested in the minister's response.
Hon. A. Petter: I was just trying to get a sense from my staff as to why that shift took place, historically. I thought it might have been because of the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council program, but I'm told that it predated that. I guess what I would say is that I think we have to re-evaluate some of the programs -- in some cases to revise them and in some cases just to identify gaps. One of the concerns that has been expressed about the heritage, language and culture program is that it is only directed to first nations, not to those aboriginal people who may live in urban areas, not to M�tis, not to non-status, etc., even though, interestingly enough, under the previous government there was -- and we've continued this practice -- a representative appointed to the council by the province from the non-status or the urban aboriginal community.
I do think that the member makes a good point in saying that there is a gap there. The First Citizens' Fund doesn't provide that kind of funding anymore due to changes made previous to this administration. On the other hand, the Heritage, Language and Culture Council does not provide funding. So I agree with you that there is a gap there. I do believe that economic, educational and cultural concerns are very often interrelated in the aboriginal community; you can't disassociate one from the other. As we start to address some of the M�tis concerns.... The member makes a good point, in the sense that we should look at gaps and see how we can best provide solutions for groups that fall within those gaps.
[4:00]
V. Anderson: Perhaps this leads almost automatically to the next focus, which is that of social initiatives. What is the definition of "social initiatives," what is included under the area, what are the programs, what is the emphasis and what are the concerns that become part of social initiatives? Is that another term for community initiatives or has it another meaning altogether?
Hon. A. Petter: I think it's important to bear in mind, hon. Chair, that this is a fairly small ministry. We have no aspirations to become the provincial equivalent of the Department of Indian Affairs. I reassure aboriginal leaders of that all the time. We're not a program-delivery ministry -- for the most part; we have talked about one area in which we are.
So in the area of social initiatives we're really talking about providing a liaison between those areas of government activity that can usefully provide program support and other forms of support for aboriginal social programs and the aboriginal communities themselves -- to try to break some of the gaps in communication and to make programs more sensitive to aboriginal communities and aboriginal people.
To answer the member's general question, we relate to all social ministries of government in social programs -- Health, Education, Social Services and Women's Equality. We have tried to assist those ministries in gearing their programs in a way that will be more responsive and accessible to aboriginal people and, by the same token, work the other end of trying to assist aboriginal people in accessing programs from government. In my opening remarks I gave some examples that I think are pretty successful in that regard. Funding has been channelled through the advisory group in the health area, both for women's equality, family violence funding and drug and alcohol abuse funding. In social services, I referred to the fact
[ Page 7179 ]
that the ministry has entered into agreements and will continue to do so with various first nations to give first nations greater control over child welfare matters. So it's that kind of work.
The other example I point to is the one I just referred to: working with the Ministry of Education to assist them as they approach negotiations of a new master tuition agreement, one that will serve the province's interests better by ensuring not only that more federal dollars are channelled into this province than has been the case -- because we do believe we've been short-changed in that regard -- but also that the program itself and the funding formula is one that better meets the needs of aboriginal communities.
So we work in that way. More than as a program deliverer, we work as a liaison and as a support to agencies of government in the way they deliver to aboriginal communities.
V. Anderson: Thank you for reminding me of the master tuition agreement. I think it's very significant. I presume that deals with aboriginal schools that are run under their own school boards that they control. I presume that it also has a relationship to aboriginal students who are in our regular educational system, where the responsibility for funding would lie, and also to what the style of programming is in these two different systems. I've known people who have worked in both systems, and they both have strengths and weaknesses.
Hon. A. Petter: One might well think that the master tuition agreement would deal with on-reserve schools, but it doesn't. It deals with a situation in which first citizens children living on reserve attend school in a public education institution run by the province. You asked what funds the federal government provides to the first nation in order to fund that education. Of the current arrangements, which have technically expired but still exist, much of the funding is provided directly to the province, although there is also a mechanism through local education agreements in which the first nation can enter into an agreement with the local school board and then the funding is provided to the first nation to provide to the school board. So it deals with the relationship of the province and its educational institutions to those first nations citizens who live on reserve and have their children attend school in a publicly run provincial educational institution.
V. Anderson: Does that deal only with the finances? Or does it also have some participation in the kind of curriculum that takes place as a result of that financing? How does that relate to program financing for the privately run band schools, which are not directly part of the provincial educational system?
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to education provided by band schools on reserve, that is a matter between the first nation and the federal government -- it is worked out directly.
With respect to the master tuition agreement itself, it has been -- at least up to this point -- a funding agreement alone. That's not to say that the province does not have an interest in those programs; but that interest would be expressed in other ways through other policies directed at school boards, not through the agreement itself. However, through the instrument of the local education agreement -- which allows a particular band to enter into an agreement with a school board -- certain understandings can be built into the agreement about the kinds of programs and services that are provided to the children. In that way, where agreements are reached locally between the band and the school board, and the money is therefore channelled through the band to the school board under the framework of the master tuition agreement, there can be provision for the kinds of concerns raised by the member being addressed.
V. Anderson: I can see that those local arrangements are probably easiest to negotiate where there is a direct relationship through a reserve and a band. Is there a system whereby the urban aboriginal people in Victoria and Vancouver could have the same kind of arrangement of having funds channelled through a group that could then negotiate with the local school board?
Hon. A. Petter: The master tuition agreement relates specifically to the federal responsibility for funding. The federal government, rightly or wrongly -- I think I would contend, wrongly -- says its responsibility is limited to those status Indian people living on reserve. Therefore the agreement does not provide any vehicle for those living off reserve, either status or non-status.
We talked earlier about the urban aboriginal population and some of the difficulties in delivering services. So one of the issues that we as a government would be interested in exploring is ways in which educational programming in urban communities could be delivered in a way that better respected and reflected the needs of the aboriginal population. I think that is done already to some extent, although the questions as to how that is done and what school boards have done in urban areas to try to deal with those concerns are better addressed to the Minister of Education. It is not an issue in which there is a framework agreement or policy like the master tuition agreement that would provide a vehicle, for example, for local education agreements.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to move on to the area of taxing authority for alienated lands. As the minister knows, the federal government passed legislation which gave Indian bands the right to tax non-Indian occupiers of alienated reserve lands. The provincial government passed subsequent legislation that was enabling legislation, for want of a better word. There have been a number of agreements now signed. One of the difficulties, particularly with non-Indian residential occupiers, is this whole question of the right to taxation without representation. It seems to me that one of the basic tenants of our taxation system in North America has been that there should be representation with
[ Page 7180 ]
taxation. In other words, those people being taxed should have some influence on the government that taxes them. I'm sure many British Columbians feel they don't have enough influence on federal or provincial governments, or even municipal governments, that impose taxes on them. But it seems to me that those people, who may well have undertaken to establish homes on leased lands on reserve, found themselves in a situation that changed partway through the lease arrangement they had entered into. I'm wondering if the minister can tell us how his government, and perhaps his ministry, intends to address a mechanism for representation for those people who find themselves in that difficult position.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'm tempted to say: in the same way the member did when he was minister. But I won't. I also appreciated the member's Freudian slip, when he said "one of the basic tenants." I take it he meant "tenets," but it is also true these are tenants, so I liked the double entendre.
I think the member raises a serious issue. We discussed it on Thursday with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, but I'm happy to at least review my thoughts on this area. I think it is a difficult issue, and there are different ways of looking at it. Under the current legislation some protections are built in, in the sense that the federal government must approve the rates of taxation. By and large -- I think entirely -- it has approved rates that correspond with the rates set in surrounding communities.
However, that may not provide sufficient protection. In some areas, as the member is aware, there have been attempts to establish advisory bodies to try to give at least input from local ratepayers living on some of these lands. But for some, that has been criticized as not going far enough. As the member suggested, the provincial role is largely facilitative, in the sense that provincial legislation is really there to prevent double taxation. The assertion of taxation authority flows from the federal legislation.
But I do think this is a serious issue that needs to be more seriously addressed, particularly if we get into self-government arrangements. The question of representation of those who may not be members of the first nation but who for one reason or another choose to occupy these lands -- how they are represented not only on matters of taxation but also on other issues -- is a really important public policy issue. I won't pretend I have all the answers at this stage. I look forward to the suggestions of the member opposite. It's one that we should address our minds very seriously to, because clearly concerns have been expressed that there needs to be some vehicle for representation. On the other hand, there are clearly issues within the first nations community on which it will be inappropriate for those tenants to have representation. I'm not quite sure how one squares that circle or resolves that dilemma, but I recognize there is a serious concern there.
J. Weisgerber: Clearly, the issues go beyond establishing the level of taxation. The minister is correct, of course, in saying that the federal government has that jurisdiction and in fact made the decision to allow bands to tax. I'm not going to suggest that the government made an inappropriate decision.
I think the province, though, has at least two responsibilities. One is its responsibility to try to ensure there isn't double taxation. Secondly, as the government responsible for municipal governments, it has within it some responsibility to provide, or work to develop, a mechanism to give those occupiers some similar kind of say in issues that municipal governments would normally deal with. Part of that is taxation and the level of taxation. But the flip side of that obviously is services, and the delivery and level of services that the residents as a group may want to have.
[4:15]
So I think the provincial government has a responsibility to involve itself in that process. I won't try to suggest that the minister today has some responsibilities that I didn't have at the time, but these processes do evolve, and sometimes you have to deal with the mechanisms that permit the taxation to go ahead. It would have been inappropriate at that time to delay bringing in legislation until some resolution was found, the flip side being I don't think that means nobody has an obligation to work toward those ends -- it's in everybody's interest. If bands are going to look at residential development as part of their own particular development strategy, then there has to be a degree of certainty for the people to whom leases are offered.
The purpose for raising the question here today is to find out whether, in the division of responsibilities within the cabinet, the minister sees this as his responsibility, whether he sees it as a responsibility primarily of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or whether he sees it as a responsibility that they may share. Who is the lead agency? Who has the responsibility? Learning that, one could decide how to pursue this a little further.
Hon. A. Petter: On matters of taxation, the relationship is one in which my ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs work very closely together. Certainly in terms of problems that have arisen under the Indian Self Government Enabling Act, that has been the case, and I would anticipate that we will continue to work closely together.
I'm sure the member is well aware that this issue arises more generally in the context of self-government. In that context my ministry will be playing at least a coordinating role in terms of policy development, so I guess the buck on that one will stop here.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious to know, then, if it's under the minister's area of responsibility, whether he has looked at things like elected bodies that would represent the non-Indian occupiers. I'm thinking of significant communities such as Musqueam, for example, which I would expect is looking to have some direct influence on decisions made regarding the expenditure of property tax dollars, the level of taxation and the level of services that they may want to see.
[ Page 7181 ]
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the Indian Self Government Enabling Act and the federal legislation, I guess my view is that that is very much a matter of at least primary federal responsibility, in the sense that the taxation authority we're now concerned about was asserted by the federal government. The provincial role was really to withdraw duplicative taxation, and I'm aware of the concerns in that regard.
But of course, it's all enclosed within difficulties surrounding the Indian Act, in which first nations can't in fact have the same freedom to set rates of taxation as municipalities. There are constraints, etc. So I won't say that I haven't addressed my mind to it, but I must say that the issue is peculiar to the Indian Act because of the government that instituted it and the framework in which it operates. I do believe, though, that we must think very seriously about the self-government model -- where we get out from underneath the Indian Act -- and what constraints should be placed upon first nations governments in a range of different areas. One of those constraints may well be what kinds of mechanisms those governments must incorporate in order to ensure accountability to constituents who in some cases may not be enrolled as members of the first nations.
In that area, along with all the other issues that the ministry considers, we are certainly looking at other models. But I won't pretend that we have a firm position at this point. I am aware of the concerns, and I know that the ministry has looked at various models. In Sechelt, for example, there has been an attempt at some kind of advisory process. In other areas, that's been proposed and looked at by various groups; and there may well be other models I'm not directly familiar with, which I assume the ministry will be looking at, from other jurisdictions. I would welcome any input from the hon. member as to where else we might look or what models he might suggest.
J. Weisgerber: Prior to federal legislation, my understanding was that in areas like Musqueam, Sechelt and others, the municipal government taxed the non-Indian occupiers. These residents had an opportunity to vote for the municipal government that was making the decisions about the level and methods of taxation and the way those services were delivered back to the taxpayers. The federal and provincial governments involved themselves in legislation and enabling legislation, but it seems to me that nobody has come to grips with or made any very obvious attempts to deal with this question of representation. Who do the residents look to when they are dissatisfied with the methods and the programs for expenditures?
Hon. A. Petter: I really don't want to slough this off, because I think it's an important issue. I've acknowledged that the province has a responsibility to address the issue, both conceptually and as we move toward looking at other models of self-government. But I do want to make the following point. In the context of the Indian Self Government Enabling Act, the problem arises not from the provincial jurisdiction that was previously asserted and then removed by the Indian Self Government Enabling Act, but from the imposition of the federal legislation granting taxation jurisdiction to the first nation. That is what has given rise to the problem. Quite properly, the problem identified by the hon. member is one that, jurisdictionally, properly falls under the federal government. In the case of the particular legislative regime we are talking about -- where the federal legislation has come in and the provincial legislation has removed taxation jurisdiction -- the federal legislation has granted taxation jurisdiction to the first nation. The problem arises -- to the extent that there is a problem -- because of the federal government's activities, and therefore it is a federal responsibility, as I see it. In other jurisdictions, the federal government has, with first nations, looked at various mechanisms that might be established, and they might well do the same here -- and I would encourage those who are concerned to encourage the federal government to do so. I think it is important to recognize, in strict jurisdictional terms, that that is where the responsibility lies. There is a larger component to this issue -- the question of representation -- that the province does have a responsibility toward. As I suggested, the work has commenced and will be ongoing in my ministry, along with consultation with municipalities and third parties to address this issue.
J. Weisgerber: On a related issue, perhaps the minister can advise what provisions there are in either the federal or the provincial taxing legislation which would ensure that tax levels would be maintained or would be competitive with those in surrounding jurisdictions. Obviously, if there aren't some controls, there would be a mechanism -- which perhaps no band council would want to avail itself of -- or a potential to tax people away and to resume control simply by forcing people through taxation to abandon their leases, whether they be residential, commercial or industrial.
Hon. A. Petter: It's my understanding -- and the member may recollect this from his time in this role -- that there is provision in the federal legislation that requires approval of rates that are set through a rates committee, which reports to the federal minister. As I understand it, the practice of that committee -- at least in this province -- has been to set rates that are competitive, in the sense that they approximate the rates of contiguous municipalities. For example, in the case of Squamish, that question arose because there were two contiguous municipalities, one of which had a higher rate and one had a lower rate. The question was: which portion would apply? As I recall, the likely outcome would have been variable rates according to whether part of the reserve -- or, in this case, surrendered land -- fell next to one municipality or the other. So through federal legislation and the rates committee that reports to the federal minister, there is a control mechanism ensuring that rates are maintained on a competitive basis, and that the kinds of concerns the member raises do not arise.
V. Anderson: At this point we seem to be discussing the relationship of community living, where
[ Page 7182 ]
communities overlap and interact with each other. It's appropriate to talk about that in the social context, but perhaps it's also appropriate to ask about that in regard to your directory, which talks about aboriginal initiatives, and see whether that ties into this as well. Again, we're trying to discover what is in this directory and what focuses and programs are part of aboriginal initiatives in your programming.
Hon. A. Petter: I guess you could describe the aboriginal initiatives branch as the eyes and ears of the ministry, in the sense that it works -- and will eventually work, when it's fully operational -- through a series of regional coordinators in establishing close relationships with first nations communities and representatives throughout the province, ensuring that the government is aware of the concerns of those communities and that those communities are plugged into government programs. The function of this branch is really that of outreach. The aboriginal initiatives branch compiles inventories of the needs of various communities in order to increase government's awareness of those needs and also to provide access to aboriginal communities, so that they know who they can contact within the ministry to receive assistance from the ministry and, through the ministry, the government as a whole. It performs a number of functions, but it acts very much as an outreach or as the eyes and ears of the ministry.
V. Anderson: If we follow that analogy through, does that mean that it is also the mouth and nose of the ministry, and that it speaks on behalf of the ministry and searches out what is happening? I find that interesting, because you are talking about aboriginal initiatives of the ministry for the community. My first reading of that was that it was the other way around: aboriginal initiatives coming to the ministry. Perhaps it's a bit of both.
[4:30]
The minister says "when this is up and running...." Can you give me some idea of what this will look like when it's up and running? Will we have 20, 50 or 100 regional directors? Will they be in offices throughout the province, or travelling? What is the nature of this directorate?
Hon. A. Petter: The plan is to have six regional coordinators, each with responsibility for a region of the province, and they would, I think, act in both of the ways that the member suggests: informing communities of aboriginal initiatives of government, but also seizing upon the initiatives of aboriginal peoples and bringing them to government in order to try to effect positive change for those aboriginal communities. But because the ministry is fairly small and is located for the most part in Victoria, we consider it important to have some component of the ministry that is regionally sensitive and that has a responsibility to understand what is going on in the various regions of the province with respect to aboriginal citizens. That is very much the role played by Aboriginal Initiatives.
I might mention that Aboriginal Initiatives has also played a role in cross-cultural education within government. In a sense it has brought aboriginal experience to government. The member will recall the cross-cultural session that was put on for MLAs a few weeks ago. Similar sessions have been put on for ministry personnel to raise cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity within government ministries. That's another function that Aboriginal Initiatives has taken on.
V. Anderson: The minister referred awhile ago to the study that was done by the Social Services ministry on aboriginal social services, interests and concerns. The aboriginal people themselves were involved in developing that particular study. In terms of how the government relates to aboriginal people, or how the government is attempting to respond to aboriginal people, is there any broader perspective which incorporates Health, Education and Social Services rather than each ministry doing it independently? Is there any overall aboriginal initiative in that regard by this particular division -- since it's the eyes and ears of the ministry?
Hon. A. Petter: This relates back to some of the discussions that we had on Thursday, but I'm happy to reiterate. I think it is true that government will tend to deliver programs in a fairly traditional way according to ministry organization. But very often that doesn't best serve the needs of aboriginal populations who may be looking for a more holistic form of delivery, or for whom those kinds of categories don't make as much sense as they do for non-aboriginal people. So I think what we're going to see is a series of steps along the road to transition. My ministry, through its policy branch and through Aboriginal Initiatives and other branches under Aboriginal Relations, is involved in bringing about that change.
For example, I mentioned the other day that the advisory committee set up with the Ministry of Health brought together funding from a couple of Health programs and also programs from Women's Equality in order to provide some funding to aboriginal communities to deal with alcohol and substance abuse as well as family violence. There is clearly a relationship between those two which might have been lost, had the funding gone out separately.
Through policy development and the development of a strategic plan, there is a recognition of the very thing the member is talking about: an attempt to get ministries to work within communities on the ground in a more cooperative way. If you look at the Kamloops friendship centre, for example, you will see that the friendship centre itself is a vehicle, in a sense, for providing a more holistic array of services, because it receives some funding from federal and provincial governments for a health program, for an outreach program for street kids and for education. Then, within the centre, those can be integrated. Generally, my ministry, at the policy level and through the way in which it assists other ministries to deliver programs, is trying to encourage ministries to work in a more
[ Page 7183 ]
holistic and cooperative way, so that ministries take the cookie cutter from the communities, rather than impose it upon them.
V. Anderson: As I listen, two questions come to mind. Has there been -- and I expect it would have to be developed on an ongoing, loose-leaf basis -- a directory of services developed, which aboriginal people can access from the ministry? And does it include Social Services, Education, Housing and all the other ministries, so that people might be able to access a ministry for assistance and information and also for financial opportunities?
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly one of the challenges I faced in my first year as the minister, which I still face today -- and from listening to some of the member's questions in other estimate debates as well as this one, I know it's one that he has faced as well -- is trying to get a handle on the constellation of programs, services and responsibilities that exists in various ministries. So I'm very sympathetic to the concern, and to the difficulty aboriginal communities must have as well. Happily the answer to the member's question is yes, we have work underway to develop a service directory that will identify programs and services that are available to aboriginal people not only within the ministry but throughout government. Our expectation is that by the end of July we will hopefully be in a position to share that with the public at large -- and perhaps make our own lives easier -- and make aboriginal people more aware of the programs that are available from this government.
V. Anderson: Please put my name on the mailing list as soon as it comes out.
I could probably ask this in other places because it doesn't just deal with the finances of this estimate, but I will ask it here: is there any estimate of the total accumulation of money that is going in any one year to the aboriginal community from all government ministries, not just from the Aboriginal Affairs ministry? We often hear about how much is coming from the federal government. What is the total spent by the province on the aboriginal...?
Hon. A. Petter: I have asked for some work to be done to try to get a better handle on that. I do have some very preliminary information that was provided to me, and I would be happy to share it on an informal basis with the member; but I don't think I'll read it into the record, because it is preliminary. I do think it is important for us to get a handle on this, not only for the purposes of accountability but also just to understand and monitor the changes that are taking place within government.
The other reason I'm a little reluctant to share the numbers is that it's difficult to know when somebody says that money is being spent on an aboriginal program whether in fact that's new money, or whether what's happened is simply that some effort has been made to identify the component of the program that's ending up in aboriginal communities, or if something between those two extremes is happening -- namely, that existing money is being put into a different envelope to deliver to aboriginal communities in a better way. So it's important to try to identify what is new resources, what is being redirected and what is simply being identified but may have always been there. The information I have right now doesn't really provide me with that. But we are attempting to develop an inventory of programs and to try to place a cost upon those programs, so we'll have a better understanding ourselves. I'll be happy to share this information with the member as it evolves.
V. Anderson: I hope we eventually will be able, as part of that inventory, to sort out how much is spent by the bureaucracies in administration, for lack of a better word, and how much of it actually gets to aboriginal people to benefit their lives -- rather than to benefit all of the people who have jobs and spend that money before it gets to the aboriginal people. Most of the service, as we've heard so often of the federal government, is provided to anybody but the aboriginal people, but is part of the aboriginal budget. So I hope that will come up.
Moving on then, the next part in your work plan is joint stewardship. We might try to see what's happening in that regard, how many joint stewardship programs are underway or contemplated, and whether this is seen as an ongoing and expanding undertaking or a short-term program while treaty negotiations and other things are underway.
Hon. A. Petter: If you look at the other categories of economic and social initiatives, joint stewardship is really a general rubric or term used here to connote a new approach to what I call natural resource policy. That embraces a number of different elements. Basically, the role of this branch is to try to do the same thing that's done with respect to economic and social initiatives, but in this case with respect to natural resource policy.
That means to ensure that natural resource ministries fulfil their fiduciary obligations, for example, in ensuring there is adequate consultation; to encourage natural resource ministries to involve aboriginal people in decision-making processes; to afford to aboriginal people at least the same degree of influence very often enjoyed by industry or other communities -- and historically it hasn't always been represented -- so to ensure, for example, that aboriginal people are involved in local land use processes, etc. In addition, where possible, there have been some pilot agreements, and co-management in some cases. For example, I can think of an initiative that in fact was underway prior to our becoming government, but would fit within the mandate of joint stewardship. That is the Lava Bed Park, a comanagement agreement with the Nisga'a to comanage a provincial park. In some cases it means an attempt to work with other ministries, or a number of ministries of government, to look at a more integrated resource planning model -- as was tried on a very small scale in the case of Fountain Valley, for example. Again,
[ Page 7184 ]
as I mentioned last day, that was an initiative of the previous government.
Essentially, joint stewardship is trying to connote an approach to land use issues and resource management issues in which aboriginal peoples are not excluded from the processes but become partners in the processes. That requires a range of initiatives: from consultation to fuller forms of participation, through to comanagement -- and in some cases, integrated resource management arrangements with first nations -- but all within the framework of existing policy, and all within the understanding that the province retains its final authority with respect to sign-offs and decisions under legislation.
V. Anderson: This seems to be an area about which there is a lot of confusion and uncertainty out there. When we talk about the ministry entering into programs with other people -- when we hear of joint stewardship -- most people think that the ministry has become a partner in managing a forest lot or a fishery licence or something of that nature. There is confusion in trying to sort out the government's role -- against somebody who is managing a process and earning a living from it, if you like -- and the relationship between that and the aboriginal people and other stakeholders who may also have, or desire to have, participation in those natural resources or in that land.
Hon. A. Petter: Just to clarify, the role of this branch is not to itself engage in partnerships, but rather to facilitate partnerships and relationships between aboriginal communities and other agencies of government -- in some cases it may be one ministry of government and in some cases it may be a variety of ministries -- to try to better involve aboriginal people in decision-making processes where they have been excluded. In other cases, the role of this branch is to try to have ministries take better account of aboriginal interests and to accommodate those interests through instruments such as comanagement or what we call joint stewardship agreements dealing with cooperative or integrated resource management.
[4:45]
V. Anderson: I would like to push that a little further. We still hear people say that joint management with other government ministries is being confused with joint operation of a business; that first nations and non-first nations are perhaps working together in joint management or joint stewardship, and perhaps the government is helping this to happen from outside, but is not actually a partner in the business that is doing the management or the stewardship or providing or controlling the licensing or whatever it might be.
Hon. A. Petter: I could explain it in a short way like this: the joint stewardship component deals simply with the land and resource management issues of government. If there were some desire to effect a business relationship between a private entrepreneur and an aboriginal community, as was the case in the recent Burns Lake experience with the Specialty Wood division, that would probably arise through Economic Initiatives or perhaps the First Nations Forestry Council, or whatever. But the preoccupation of the joint stewardship branch of the ministry, where government has some regulatory authority or a planning process in place, is to ensure that first nations are afforded at least the minimal protection they're guaranteed by law through the fiduciary obligation identified by the courts, and hopefully to go beyond that and define ways in which first nations can be more fully involved and have a real voice in decision-making processes. In some cases economic opportunities may come out of that, but the preoccupation here is to ensure that first nations have a meaningful role in decisions that will affect their interests and their lives within their communities. Non-aboriginal interests have more or less taken that for granted, but first nations haven't traditionally been afforded that in the past.
V. Anderson: Following up from that and perhaps overstating it in order to illustrate the point, out of discussion with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, according to the press release, we hear that their main concern was not what was going to be developed, but that they had established a principle that now there were government-to-government negotiations and a recognition of equality in meeting to negotiate. When you tie that to joint stewardship, the question that needs to be clarified is: does this mean that the government of the province and the government of the aboriginal people -- and it may be that these two governments are going to be making decisions -- and municipal governments, for instance, and people who are not part of aboriginal government become uninvolved in the process? Does that mean that negotiations which they used to assume was handled through the government have changed, and that government is acting with aboriginal people who have more involvement, which is not just fiduciary, and who have an untoward amount of involvement, and that other people are being left out? I think that's where some of the uneasiness is arising.
Hon. A. Petter: I think that uneasiness does arise to some extent because we as a society have grown very accustomed to aboriginal people being silent and discounted altogether. Even bringing aboriginal people up to the same degree of involvement non-aboriginal people have enjoyed, I think, may seem intrusive to some people, simply because they have not in the past experienced the involvement of aboriginal peoples in the regular processes of government.
If I can digress for a second, I'm reminded of a study that was done at university in which a particular professor went out of her way to try to use an equivalent number of male and female pronouns in the classroom and thought that she had succeeded. At the end of five or six lectures she was told by her students that no, she had used about 90 percent female pronouns, because it had seemed such an intrusion. When they actually checked the tapes of the lectures, they found out she had only used about 30 percent female pronouns. The use of 30 percent female
[ Page 7185 ]
pronouns seemed like 90 percent to the class because they were used to all male pronouns being used.
Back to the point at hand, if you are used to aboriginal people not being involved at all and being silenced altogether, even a minimal level of involvement may seem intrusive simply because we're changing the reference point. I think that's very much what's happening in some communities.
To come to the substance of the concern, joint stewardship is very much a policy geared to operating within existing government policies in which it is recognized that the provincial legislation and policy-makers retain their ultimate authority. The question is: how can aboriginal communities and interests be accommodated so that their voices can be better heard, and they may have greater influence over that authority? If there are to be actual transfers of that authority, that would have to take place in the treaty negotiation process, not in the pre-treaty process. We've made it very clear, for example, that we do not view joint stewardship as a vehicle for moratoria or for veto power. There may be some very specific interests that we would want to look at in terms of future policy changes around sacred sites or whatever, and existing heritage legislation already has provision.... Let me make it very clear: in the pre-treaty period, when we're talking about joint stewardship, we're talking about facilitating aboriginal involvement within existing governmental structures.
In the case of the policy forums we were talking about earlier, it may be that the government would consider some changes in policy, but again, those would be changes of the government's policy; they would not involve transfers of authority as such. In our view, if such transfers are to occur, will have to occur through the treaty negotiation process. These efforts are very much geared at enhancing participation, involvement and opportunity for first nations citizens. They are not about actual transfers of authority or transfers of lands and resources of the kind one might expect to see in a treaty negotiation process. In our view, those latter goals must be addressed in the context of treaty negotiations.
J. Weisgerber: Joint stewardship agreements, I suspect, don't in fact simply provide a mechanism for ministries to fulfil their fiduciary responsibilities. These would be pretty hollow documents if all you were going to do was set out in some kind of a special agreement the province's existing fiduciary responsibilities, and I hope that wasn't what the minister was suggesting. What the government is doing through these mechanisms is setting out to resolve some area-specific problems by extending the degree of consultation and the amount of approvals around resource extractions in exchange for agreement on some area of dispute. If that's what is happening, the danger with entering into those kinds of agreements is that they may well encourage the kind of dispute that led to the agreement. If a group of people in an area want to have extended consultation, more involvement and more control, they may well try to follow the example of the Fountain Valley band and involve themselves in a road right-of-way dispute so that it will set a stage for the government to come in and enter into a joint stewardship agreement.
What I'm suggesting is that perhaps, at the end of the day, rather than resolve problems, the whole process of joint stewardship agreements may well have the opposite effect. It may well encourage people to follow the example of those bands who have been successful in achieving joint stewardship agreements. I am curious whether the minister can give us some examples of joint stewardship agreements that have not been entered into around issues such as disputes over land use or a road right-of-way, or some other area of friction with the broader community.
Hon. A. Petter: On the first point, I think there is some misunderstanding about the term "joint stewardship," and maybe that's because it is used differently at different times.
The point I was trying to make in respect of the joint stewardship branch and its activities is that its role is to effect a new relationship with first nations through a range of initiatives, starting with ensuring that ministries meet their fiduciary responsibilities but going beyond that to greater levels of participation and alternative ways in which first nations can be given greater roles to play and opportunities beyond fiduciary obligations. I don't disagree at all with the notion that joint stewardship embraces things like comanagement agreements and integrated resource management agreements -- which are sometimes called joint stewardship agreements -- but they are agreements that go beyond simple fiduciary obligations. I consider those all to be joint stewardship initiatives. Fiduciary obligation is the floor -- by law it's the floor -- but comanagement, forms of participation on committees and integrated resource management are other forms, and ones that have drawn more attention.
I also think there is a danger, as the hon. member points out, that these kinds of responses can have the opposite effect you desire if you respond only where a dispute arises and reaches a particular level of discord. We have to distinguish, because disputes arise when people have disagreements. That is fair enough. The question is: what is the validity of the dispute, and what is the most appropriate response? We as a government do not want to be seen as responding only once disputes reach the point of conflict or public discord, because I think the hon. member is right: if that were the case, we would create a system of implicit incentives for people to engage in conflict and discord.
The example the member used, interestingly -- the Fountain Valley dispute -- was a situation in which the dispute arose under the previous government and the agreement to try to deal with that was, as I mentioned last day, already underway with the previous government. I share the hon. member's concern that that not be seen as the case. Where disputes arise and we are aware of them, I think we should address them -- but I think we should address them earlier rather than later, and I think our response should, as much as possible, be uniform. It should not be governed by
[ Page 7186 ]
whether the dispute is occasioned by some form of public protest or not, to the extent that that is realistic. It isn't always realistic. We as a ministry are trying much harder -- and resources have been a problem here -- to deal with first nations before disputes arise, to deal with first nations that perhaps have been less inclined to engage in conflict and, for that reason, may be less aware of some of the initiatives, and to do so before the dispute in order to send a very positive message of the kind that I think the member would want us to send -- namely, this government is not simply going to respond reactively when problems arise and are identified by first nations in a particular way. Rather, we will evaluate disputes on their merits, and react according to the merits without the need for any kind of demonstration in either sense of the word -- beyond the merits of the dispute -- being shown to government.
J. Weisgerber: I have a couple of areas of interest around joint stewardship agreements. One is that in the agreement I have examined -- unfortunately, I don't have it in front of me -- there appears to be a clause that allows for the agreement to be extended unless there is explicit agreement by both parties that that shouldn't happen. I am concerned that in order to solve an issue or a dispute or a point of public friction, the government -- perhaps unwittingly or inadvertently -- will enter into an agreement with very long-term implications. I'd be interested in the minister's comments on that.
[5:00]
The other concern I have around joint stewardship agreements is that I would like to be very sure that what we're talking about is the stewardship of public lands -- not the stewardship of all lands within a given territory or region or area. The distinction, clearly, is that the government isn't entering into an agreement that involves some form of joint stewardship or joint management on privately owned lands.
Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the question of the extension of agreements, I too don't have time to examine the text. But it's certainly my recollection -- in fact, this was an element of difficulty in the Fountain Valley case -- that the opposite of what the member is suggesting is the case in most of the agreements we've signed. In other words, the agreements do not have an automatic continuation; they expire unless the parties agree to continue. We can perhaps compare notes over the break and see which agreement the member might be referring to -- if, in fact, he has one in mind. Of the agreements I'm aware of, my sense is that they all have a termination date and would terminate without some affirmative action to the contrary. But I'm prepared to receive some information that that did not apply...at least, in some agreement the member may have been thinking of.
With respect to the second component that the member raises about private lands, very clearly these agreements are directed solely at the stewardship of public resources -- provincial Crown resources -- and decision-making authority with respect to those resources. They are not directed at the stewardship of private property or private holdings, and that should be clearly understood as a line of demarcation in terms of these agreements.
My attention is drawn to the hour. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:02 p.m.
The Committee met at 6:11 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 9: minister's office, $311,041 (continued).
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to talk about treaty negotiations. In essence, I'd like to continue some of the ideas I expressed in third reading debate on the Treaty Commission Act. At that time I suggested that in my view the province, as part of the treaty or land claims negotiation process, had a particular responsibility to represent the non-aboriginal British Columbians who wouldn't have a seat at the negotiating table. I think it's fair to say that most of us recognize the government has a responsibility to represent the interests of all British Columbians in areas like land claims negotiations.
I made the distinction then, and I want to do it again, that aboriginal British Columbians alone will have the opportunity to sit at the negotiating table. They will have the opportunity to pursue and push for resolutions that favour their interests, and that's the way it should be. I think it's also important to recognize that the federal negotiators are inhibited by what they perceive to be their fiduciary responsibility to Indian people in this country. I don't believe non-aboriginal British Columbians can very realistically look to the federal government to protect their interests. So by a process of elimination, it falls to the provincial government. I'm wondering whether or not the minister agrees with that premise I make, that the province has a particular responsibility in those negotiations to represent the interests of non-aboriginal British Columbians.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I do agree that the province certainly has a responsibility to represent third parties and, beyond that, the provincial community at large in these negotiations.
I wouldn't let the federal government completely off the hook, however. I think the federal government also has a responsibility -- particularly in areas in which they exercise jurisdiction -- to ensure that third-party interests are represented. Fishing is an obvious example of that. Indeed, I think part of the frustration sometimes felt by fishing groups toward the federal government is that there hasn't been sufficient
[ Page 7187 ]
consultation with the federal government. I do agree that the province has a particular responsibility, but it's not just the province that has a responsibility in that regard. In my opening remarks -- I won't review it in the same detail -- I went through the various initiatives that this government has undertaken to enhance third-party consultation and put in place the kinds of mechanisms that will ensure the public does have a very meaningful role and can participate in these negotiations.
[6:15]
In summary, the third-party consultation or advisory process that was established by the previous government has been undergoing some serious review, with the committee itself taking the lead. As a result of that review, we now have an agreement in principle with the committee that I hope will be finalized in an actual memorandum in the near future. This will reform the committee not only into the main table of interest but also into sectoral tables of interest so that we can deal in a much more specific way with particular interests as we develop mandates, as we develop positions to take to treaty negotiation tables. In addition -- and this is a major improvement -- I think we can take some credit for making the federal government aware, or for inviting the federal government into this process. The federal government has agreed to participate as well, so there can be -- as I used the expression earlier -- one-stop shopping for provincial third-party groups that are anxious to ensure that their input is taken account of by not only the provincial but the federal government. Incidentally, the federal government will be involved and will help to share the costs of this procees.
We've also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Union of B.C. Municipalities ensuring municipal participation. We also understand that we have an obligation to deal with local communities; we've done that to some extent in the Nisga'a negotiations. I think that the degree of community consultation, particularly in the third-party groups, has been tremendously enhanced with the new negotiating team and structure in place. I do believe we can improve on that, and I think it's going to be partly a product of building into framework agreements clear understandings about the transparency of information to third-party groups -- although they'll have to observe certain confidentiality requirements in receiving that information from the tables -- and doing the same thing at the local level.
In the Nisga'a claim I think we have rather creatively managed to live within the spirit of the framework agreement, despite some restrictions that I've debated before, by taking positions to the third-party groups before they get to the table, and thereby we don't violate a confidentiality clause. We work on mandates together before positions reach the table, and I think that kind of work can continue as well.
Beyond that, I think we bear responsibility to the public at large. I did speak with the member for Vancouver-Langara earlier about this component. It's not just to third parties -- big or small -- or just to municipal institutions, but to the public at large. We have tried in the Nisga'a negotiations to have open houses, for example. I think we have to work a lot harder through the Treaty Commission, in cooperation with the federal and first nations governments, but also on our own, to make sure that information about the nature of the treaty-making process -- the way it's conducted and the kinds of issues that will be of concern to the general public -- is dispensed to the public at large. That's a sort of overview of where we're going in fulfilment of commitments that we've made in the areas the member has mentioned.
J. Weisgerber: I will want to talk at some length about some of those third-party advisory groups and the confidentiality agreements. But before we move on to those issues, I again want to make sure that I understand the position the minister and the government are taking and the position that the government is willing to take. It seems obvious to me and to anyone who has examined this issue in any detail that there are going to be significant demands by the various claimant groups. Some tough negotiations are going to have to take place. Again I'm going to look primarily to the province to take those tough positions on behalf of British Columbians, who will be expected to bear some of the costs. I don't want to let the federal government off the hook either, but I do think that you will see the federal government coming in in a mode that suggests again that their fiduciary obligations are overriding. That will again clearly identify the need for the province to take this particular position of representing those who aren't otherwise represented at the table.
The fisheries are a good example of where the federal government has jurisdiction over the resource that's in question -- the resource that may in fact be reallocated. Again I think that British Columbia can't expect or leave it to the federal government to take the issue on behalf of the resource and also to protect and represent the other resource-users. I see the province taking part in a negotiation that would involve Fisheries, even though they would be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because of the impact on British Columbian commercial fishermen and recreational users and simply to ensure that there is fair allocation and protection of the resource.
Just to be sure that I understand where the minister is coming from, and more importantly, that those who might read a record of this debate know where the minister is coming from, I'm looking for him to recognize that particular responsibility for those British Columbians who won't be afforded a seat at the table, at least under the current model for land claims negotiations.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm happy to provide a reassurance that the province, both in its role in the negotiations and in its responsibility to third parties, does believe that it has responsibility to address all components of the agreement, including those that may fall under federal jurisdiction. That is why in the Nisga'a negotiations, for example, we have a Fisheries subcommittee that deals with the negotiating team. If
[ Page 7188 ]
you talk to the members of that committee, you will find that they feel that the kind of information that has been shared and the kind of analysis that has been done through that provincial committee has been in many ways more satisfactory, from their point of view, than the kind of information they have had from some of the federal processes. That's an important point. I do agree that we have that responsibility for all aspects of negotiations, and I'm happy to give that assurance.
I also want to say, though, that I believe the federal government, despite its fiduciary obligation, bears a responsibility. I don't want to see that completely off-loaded onto the province. But if the member is asking if I agree that the province bears a responsibility to represent third-party and public interests in respect of all aspects of the negotiations, the answer is yes. That is being demonstrated now in the Nisga'a negotiations through the fact that we have a subcommittee dealing with Fisheries issues. We are working very closely with that subcommittee, notwithstanding that the majority of issues dealt with by that committee are those that fall under federal jurisdiction.
J. Weisgerber: I too believe that the federal government has a responsibility, and I'm dismayed from time to time by the actions that I see the federal government take. I don't want for a moment to suggest that I don't believe they have a responsibility. I'm just not confident that they are going to be willing to exercise that responsibility to the degree I think is appropriate. Obviously, I don't get a chance to debate estimates with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, so I am bringing the issue to this forum in order to lay it out in that respect.
I think there have been some meaningful improvements to the third-party consultation process, and I commend the minister for the move to sectoral committees and for the role he played in bringing the federal government into what I think is a fundamentally important process. Consultation with all groups is important. In his discussions of that, the minister moved on to his concerns over confidentiality, particularly that flowing from the Nisga'a framework agreement. Having had an opportunity to review the Nisga'a framework agreement several times, I don't believe that either the literal interpretation of the agreement or the spirit and intent with which it was entered into would preclude the province or the federal government from involving themselves in meaningful dialogue with third parties. Indeed, I believe the confidentiality referred to is the confidentiality of the final agreements.
If the minister has the opportunity to look at that document with the intention to share information, he'll find that there is considerable latitude in the agreement, and I can assure him that that was the intent when I signed the agreement. It was an integral part of the principles for land claims negotiation that we published prior to signing the agreement, and I think that should underline the intent with which the agreement was entered into.
I've raised that because I continue to be convinced that the ultimate success of this process is going to hinge on the willingness of the parties to share more information around the items that are being discussed and around the scope of the negotiations. I was going to say I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure that the minister must hear the same kinds of concerns expressed that I do around the land claims negotiations and the extent of issues being negotiated. And I'm confident, or at least relatively comfortable, that many of those things that people relay to me as facts are in fact gross exaggerations of the situation as it exists.
But unless governments are willing to be open in the process, those myths, rumours, hints and allegations will continue to fly around. I think it is important and critical to the land claims negotiation process that there be the greatest possible degree of openness in the negotiations. I think the province and federal government should lay out their positions. That's not to suggest that ultimate negotiations aren't going to see those positions change. But I believe that in entering into a set of negotiations, the opening positions of all three parties should be made public. That would modify the positions taken by the three parties, but it would also allow everyone interested in the process to examine the starting positions and then follow the negotiations through to their ultimate conclusion.
The only other scenario I can see is that the positions be held poker-style, close to the vest, and that at the end of the day only the resolution is given public exposure. I think that would lead to condemnation from all sides of the ultimate agreement reached. You can look at the Charlottetown accord, at the Meech Lake agreement, at any number of agreements by governments of various levels -- reached in private, behind closed doors -- that Canadians haven't been willing to accept. Had those processes been more open, had the politicians at the time been willing to open up the negotiations process to public scrutiny, I think there would have been a far greater understanding of the agreements that were ultimately reached. To some degree I'm going to start sounding like a broken record on this subject, but I do believe that it is the key issue now; that the decision to negotiate claims has been reached and that hurdle overcome.
[6:30]
The process has to be the next challenge that we face. I'm not confident that the model being used with the Nisga'a negotiations can function, particularly in communities where there is less isolation than there is in the Nass Valley. While they are overlapping, the interests in the Nass Valley are pretty clearly defined. As you move into negotiations that will be more complex, the willingness to be open -- to lay our cards out on the table, if you like -- is going to be even more important. Again I'd be interested in the minister's reaction.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comments, and I certainly agree that we must strive throughout the negotiating process to be as open and inclusive as possible. Otherwise negotiations will not succeed, and the outcomes will not be seen as legitimate. Nor will they enjoy the measure of public support that we would all like, unless there is a sense
[ Page 7189 ]
among the community -- in particular those groups most directly affected -- that they have been included in the process.
I'm not sure that I would agree with stating positions publicly at the outset, although I'm prepared to reflect upon the member's suggestion. There are a number of problems with that. I'll share with you what I think the problems are, and perhaps it will assist me in my reflection over the next while as to whether I'm exaggerating. One is that if you share a position up front, you necessarily have to make that position fairly hard-line and inflexible, simply because any position shared publicly immediately becomes the floor. In the past and in other contexts I know the member has criticized members of government for making positions public, because by doing so they have -- according to the member -- limited their bargaining room and their positions. So I suppose one could be criticized on both sides.
The other problem, it seems to me, is that if negotiating is to be successful, particularly in this very difficult area, it will have to be interest-based rather than position-based. Perhaps there's a case to be made about being very open about one's interests, but what one has to do is come to the negotiating table fairly flexible on positions but much firmer on interests. You know the old Harvard Business School negotiating example about two people who both covet an orange and both take the position that that orange is to be theirs -- irreconcilable positions. But if they start to express their interests, it turns out that one wants the orange for the juice, and the other wants the orange for the peel to put into some baked goods. Those interests can easily be reconciled with a single orange. I think that's a good example -- perhaps a little hackneyed by now -- of how interest-based bargaining works.
By looking at interests for what they are, rather than allowing them to be reduced to positions -- i.e., I want the orange -- one allows greater flexibility to accommodate interests. In an interest-based bargaining environment there is a strong case to be made to state interests, such as the interest we have stated with respect to ensuring economic self-sufficiency, and other such interests. I'm not sure that stating hard-and-fast positions assists in the negotiations. In fact, I rather think it may rigidify the situation to such a point that people can no longer get back to interests; they become fixated on positions.
Thirdly, I'm not sure it's practical in the sense that a negotiation is a complex interrelationship of proposals, some of which may be more fully developed at the beginning of the negotiation, some of which may only emerge at later stages of the negotiation, and may give a false sense of what the negotiation is about.
I guess I prefer to say that yes, we should be open about what we are negotiating and about interests. We should certainly interact with the community as we negotiate, to make sure that as key positions emerge from the interests they are shared at that point to make sure they don't diverge with other interests in the community. I think that a more interactive form of public consultation is more likely to be productive, but I'm prepared to reflect on the member's suggestions.
J. Weisgerber: That's an interesting debate. I suppose you could argue that if one of the two parties in the Harvard case said, "My bottom line is that I want the peel," and the other one said, "My bottom line is that I want the juice," your negotiations would come to a conclusion pretty quickly. I'm not sure that I would accept that argument as a basis for not laying out positions on the table.
In his response the minister started to touch on something that I was intending to talk about as my next step in this process -- the establishment of positions. I think the minister was referring to cost-sharing in his suggestion that taking positions early on somehow moved the base point. Exactly so. I couldn't agree with you more. I think that the serious negotiating error made by the -- in suggesting that his government's bottom line on cost-sharing would be 25 percent -- effectively made 25 percent the starting point for negotiations. Many things were wrong with that statement at that time. First, the Premier was not in a position to make any kind of agreement. Second, he had moved a considerable distance away from the official stance that the province had taken to the negotiations, which was essentially that this was a federal responsibility. He was not going to go to the negotiations willing to concede that there was any provincial responsibility.
I would take that as an example which would support the argument rather than somehow take away from it. But it does bring us to one of those critical issues: the government's position on cost-sharing. The government has made a number of statements recently to the effect that it wouldn't contribute more than 25 percent. To my knowledge, it has yet to say 25 percent of what. There is a question: are we going to contribute 25 percent of the cash, 25 percent of the value of the resources or 25 percent of the total cost of settlement? Twenty-five percent of exactly what remains open. The cash is clearly an easily identified quantity. I wonder if the minister could give us some sense of how those negotiations are going and what the position of the province specifically is. What are we talking about when we say that 25 percent is the province's bottom line?
Hon. A. Petter: The member raises a number of interesting points. First of all, while I appreciate his attempt to put words into my mouth, I will point out that I was simply referring to examples he has given in the past, which contradict his earlier assertion that the sharing of positions is necessarily a good thing. I'll leave him to conclude what those examples might or might not be. By drawing attention to his own assertions about the Premier's statement of up to 25 percent -- I never heard the term "bottom line of up to 25 percent" used by anyone -- he contradicts his earlier assertion that it's a good idea to share positions openly.
In any event, the issue of cost-sharing is obviously a very important one, and I want to comment about a few aspects of it. The member asks how the negotiations are going. I have indicated that I think we are making progress in the negotiations. I am optimistic that an agreement can be concluded in the foreseeable future.
[ Page 7190 ]
However, I don't want to minimize the difficulties or give the impression that we believe negotiations cannot proceed until there has been an agreement. Certainly I believe it's in our interests to have an agreement. It's in the interests of everyone to know ahead of time what the apportionment costs will be, but that negotiation could, as it has in other provinces, take place in tandem with the initial stages of negotiations, at least. Unlike the federal government, we haven't insisted on the precondition of a cost-sharing agreement.
In respect of the statement made by the Premier, I should place that statement in a bit of context, because the member has tried, in a sense, to make more of the statement than can be made. I remind the member that the previous government did -- it may have been subsequent to the Premier's statement -- indicate that it acknowledged that the province had an obligation and ought to contribute a fair share toward the negotiation of treaty settlements. That statement was made by the previous government, not just by ourselves in opposition.
The Premier, when in opposition, was asked what a fair settlement might be, and he offered the figure of up to 25 percent by way of example. As the member suggests, that's fairly open. There are a number of interpretations one can place on that. That may be a good thing, because we clearly don't want that suggestion to be driving the negotiations. But it was a very responsible suggestion of what range one might be looking at.
If you look at other provinces and the recent costs they have contributed -- and here I'll use the measure of budgetary costs to the provincial treasury -- for agreements they have entered into dealing with land, Alberta has paid more than 40 percent of budgetary costs in claim settlements. In the recent Saskatchewan agreement dealing with reconciliation of land with respect to treaty land, there is some leeway in the agreement, but the provincial share can run as high as 49 percent. If you look at Quebec, the provincial share of budgetary costs toward that agreement runs as high as 80 or even 90 percent. So the Premier's suggestion of up to 25 percent was a fairly responsible one, particularly taking account of the fact that this government and the previous one acknowledged that B.C. is in a unique position historically. We're not like other provinces, but we do bear some fair share. So I would encourage the member not to make too much of that statement, and I am sure he can see that it was offered as an example of what a fair share might constitute.
The member is right that there are number of different ways of measuring costs, and I think one has to look at them all. The cost to the provincial treasury is a key component that must be looked at in terms of what the government and the provincial taxpayer can afford. There are other ways of measuring costs, but that way is particularly pertinent in these days of tight budgets, in which we sit around and very closely review the limitations on budgets in this province.
The Chair: We'll check to see if that is a division in the House. If it is, this committee will stand recessed to facilitate the division, and then we'll be subject to direction of the House. In the absence of specific directions to the contrary, we will reconvene here after the division has been taken. We are now recessed.
The Committee recessed at 6:44 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 6:52 p.m.
J. Weisgerber: In listening to the minister, I didn't get a much clearer indication of the position that his government was taking. I heard him say that the position adopted by the Premier was a reasonable one, but there was no indication of his understanding of the position -- either then or now -- that his government is taking. Was the Premier talking about 25 percent of the total cost, 25 percent of the cash costs, or 25 percent of the resources?
I hope that the examples the minister uses with other jurisdictions aren't intended to suggest that British Columbia is considering the federal argument that perhaps we should assume a similar share of costs, because I believe that British Columbia is unique in the size and the ultimate cost of resolution versus the cost of resolution in other jurisdictions. I think British Columbia is unique insomuch as the terms of confederation strengthen the constitution with regard to federal-provincial responsibilities. After I get some sense from him regarding percentages, I'd like to talk a little bit about the valuation of resources and the real value of resources.
Hon. A. Petter: The concluding comments of the member simply reflect what I said. I said that if you look at what has occurred in other provinces, there are percentages as high as 80 percent or 90 percent of the budgetary costs provided in the case of Quebec, for example. But I then went on to say that we believe, as the previous government did, that British Columbia's situation can be distinguished from and is different from those of other provinces. Hence the Premier's example -- and I think it was just that: an example -- was modest, by comparison with the percentages that have formed the basis for settlements. These are percentages of budgetary costs -- that is, the costs and foregone revenues to the treasury of these other settlements.
I don't think we have any disagreement that British Columbia is unique. Let me assure the member that British Columbia advancing its uniqueness is a very strong argument as to why its fair share should be lower than what has been allowed other governments. But I think it's still worth knowing -- we in British Columbia shouldn't be ostriches -- what other governments have contributed. It is a reference point -- not one that binds us, but one that can be distinguished because of our unique history. It is nevertheless a reference point that the federal government brings to the table, which we have to forcefully argue can be distinguished.
With respect to the 25 percent, I cannot provide to the member what the Premier may or may not have meant in detail, because I don't believe the Premier was
[ Page 7191 ]
providing a detailed position, as the member would like to have us believe. I think the Premier was suggesting, as an example, the kind of range in which a settlement might lie, and what a fair amount might be. I'm not going to read into that all sorts of details that weren't intended; that was not intended, to my knowledge.
I will say that the province will continue to assert the very strong position that the federal government bears the primary responsibility; that, while other provinces have shared as high as 80 or 90 percent in some cases -- in Alberta as high as 40 and in Saskatchewan as high as 49 percent -- we are different; that we have a different history and responsibility; and that a fair share for British Columbia is different than what it is for other provinces. Our contribution should be markedly less than those shares.
J. Weisgerber: That statement has received pretty broad publication, and not simply by the fact that I repeated it. Indeed, many observers of the process and the media have looked at that number regularly. I would find it surprising if, in the course of 18 months, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs wouldn't have said to the Premier: "What did you mean when you said that? Were you talking about cash? Were you talking about resources? Exactly what were you referring to?" I guess only he and the Premier know for sure.
In any event, I'd like to move on to talking about the resource valuation and the role that land and resources will play in settlements. I assume we're now moving to debating some of those issues in the Nisga'a negotiations, so it's an issue the minister must have involved himself with. It seems to me that land and resources in British Columbia -- forest tenures and all the resources that go with land -- must be part of the issues being negotiated. Claims involve land and resources. It seems relatively easy for governments to value land and resources for commercial transactions, because there are similar transactions in the private sector involving similar land and resources, so the normal processes of assessment and comparison would normally apply.
[7:00]
I think what's different in the alienation of land and resources for land claim settlements, though, is that those resources will receive a considerably different tax treatment. If we're talking about transferring land and resources and, with those, taxing authority, then a whole different mechanism of evaluation has to apply, because land will have considerably greater value to the province if the province is transferring ownership and taxing authority with it. I wonder what kinds of discussions, debates and mechanisms the minister has in place to evaluate land and resources under those rather unique circumstances.
Hon. A. Petter: If I was a bit guarded in my previous comments and if I'm a bit guarded now, it's because one does not want to take hard-and-fast positions that could prejudice one in terms of negotiations with the federal government or in other contexts. But let me talk about the resource valuation land question in general, and then if there are more specifics that the member wishes to address, I'll do my best to do so.
There are a variety of mechanisms, a variety of issues and a variety of questions regarding evaluation that can be looked at in terms of what might be brought to the table in the form of lands and resources. For example, the province could transfer bare land values, bare land with some resource components or bare land with all resource components. There is a range of possibilities in terms of what might be transferred if the province were to assume responsibility for transferring a particular resource in a given settlement.
In addition, as the member says, the question of what jurisdiction is exercised by the first nations with respect to that land and resource base must be taken account of. I would urge the member not to presuppose that, simply because under the Indian Act and the federal division of powers regime outside of treaty, these lands would not be subject to taxation. That would not necessarily be the case. One of the advantages of a new treaty negotiation process is that it allows us to look at a variety of possibilities around issues such as taxation and jurisdiction. Some lands may be transferred in fee simple, for example, and remain part of a provincial land base; some may be transferred as part of a new aboriginal land base; some may be transferred with resources; some may be transferred without resources; and some tenures could be transferred. There's a whole range -- a smorgasbord of possibilities -- and the valuation must take account of the interest that is being transferred. So rather than giving some categorical answer on the valuation issue in any of those scenarios, I would point out that a variety of possibilities are open to the province and to the negotiators in looking at how best to provide a resource base or a resource component to a treaty negotiation in a way that is least disruptive to surrounding communities and preserves economic stability.
Let me give another example. One of the major concerns in many areas may not be so much with the extraction of the resource but with the processing of the resource. Resources could be transferred to a first nation on condition that those resources, once extracted, are delivered to a particular processing facility or are maintained within existing provincial markets for that resource. So there is a whole series of conditions and possibilities and permutations, each of which has its own cost implications that must be looked at very seriously. What's good about having a range of possibilities is that it allows us to fashion agreements that do not disrupt local communities or local economies and that do not impose undue costs upon provincial taxpayers.
Obviously, one very important issue -- and I'll just refer to this in closing -- is the question of resource royalties that would be collected by the province. If the transfer of a resource results in the province no longer having the opportunity to extract the royalty from that resource, then I would fully expect that there must be some accounting made for the cost that's represented by that foregone royalty at the negotiating table, in the
[ Page 7192 ]
cost-sharing formula or somewhere. In looking at the costs, we must not only look at the costs that may go out, but also the costs that may result from money not coming into the provincial treasury as a result of transfers of resources. So foregone royalties and foregone rents are an important component.
I've tried to touch on a number of different aspects and to explain that it isn't a simple matter of what to do if you transfer resources. There is a whole range of possibilities, each of which has its own complexity. In general, in terms of looking at the cost of resource transfers on the provincial treasury, for example, we must attend to the cost of providing something and the cost not only of money out, but also of money not coming in.
J. Weisgerber: I would certainly never assume that the province was simply abandoning the tax field. As a matter of fact, I would hope that it is including new tax regimes and methods in its negotiations. It is also probably fair to say that the existing tax regimes, whether they be royalties or other kinds of taxes, are not likely to simply be transferred from one to the other as part of the transfer of land and resources.
I want to underline the importance of the various methods of evaluation with regard to land and resources and the ability to collect royalties, taxes and other kinds of foregone revenues to the Crown. But I'm not sure of the kinds of comparisons that will be available. Once -- or if, as part of the negotiations -- the tax field is vacated, I'm not sure how government would go about evaluating a resource for which it had foregone the right to tax. Would it be by way of royalty or other? It would seem to me that the people who sold Alaska didn't so much lose on the selling price -- it may well have been justified, as small as it was, at the time of sale -- as on the foregone revenues from the resources. I think we've got to be very cognizant of that as we move into this.
I am looking for a sense. I'm not suggesting that I'm not getting a sense; in fact, I am getting an indication of where the minister is coming from, albeit he is not willing to provide any great amount of detail -- and I probably wouldn't expect him to. These are the kinds of core issues we now have to start to make not only ourselves aware of -- I don't presume for a moment that the minister hasn't considered these things -- but I think it's important for us to start talking about these things so that they become the dialogue about the issue, and so that the real issues become important when people are asked, in one way or another, to support the settlements that are reached.
Hon. A. Petter: The hon. member's comments were more in the form of comments than questions, but I will say that I appreciate his remarks. Harkening back to the earlier comments made by the hon. member, I do think that sometimes it is very difficult to find market equivalents -- particularly one thinks of the Nisga'a claim, for example. It may be very hard to ascertain the value of a particular set of lands in the abstract. The province does have, through its resource royalties, an indication of the economic value of the resources in respect of that land, at least. At a very minimum, -- and I think the hon. member was suggesting this in his comments as well -- we've got to look to what those resource revenues would be and what resource revenues the province may be foregoing through the transfer of those resources. In the case of areas where tenures have been granted or where tenures exist that might be granted, that may provide a fairly good proxy for at least a substantial value of the land -- assuming that the rents are being collecting through those royalties. So that's a very important indicator and a very important component that has a very immediately impact on the provincial treasury. It is a little harder in the abstract to imagine what market transactions might be in land in the Nass Valley if there were such a market for land in the Nass Valley. But to look at it much more immediately and concretely, one can evaluate the impact of transferring a particular piece of land or parcels of land on the provincial resource picture in the future. That does provide some guidance, and I heard the member suggesting the same.
J. Weisgerber: Just to wind this up, it seems to me that if we're talking about alienation without taxation and if there are components that are alienated without taxation, you're essentially doing that in perpetuity. It's going to be very difficult for any of us to forecast over long periods of time what the real value of resources are, if they are not subject to any form of revenue generation for the jurisdiction.
I know the minister has talked about the Sechelt plan, but it seems to me that one of the attractive features of the Sechelt proposal is that it essentially focuses its attention on cash values and suggests that first nations -- in this case the Sechelt -- would use the cash to purchase those lands and resources that it believes are important to the stability of the community. Can the minister give me a summary of his position on that approach to claims?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not quite clear if the member's question is about my approach to the Sechelt claim or my approach to the notion of settlements that involve a high cash component. Clearly there are some attractive features to the Sechelt proposal, because it does involve cash; on the other hand, cash is in short supply these days.
I think, more realistically, the member will acknowledge that while the Sechelt claim does focus on cash, it's unlikely that the vast majority of first nations could effect a treaty settlement without there being some substantial component to be negotiated, which involved an element of land and resources. I think Sechelt is atypical in that regard. I don't think that means we shouldn't negotiate on the basis the Sechelt has suggested. I think we have to build into our approach to negotiations and into cost-sharing formulas, for that matter, some flexibility to allow for the fact that there will be a higher cash component in some settlements and a higher land and resource component in others. Most importantly of all, we have to ensure that the formula maintains some neutrality on that, and that there isn't an incentive for one
[ Page 7193 ]
government to force the negotiations in one direction or another.
It was suggested by some that the province should simply assume all responsibility for lands and resources and leave it at that. I know full well what would happen if that were the case: the federal government and first nations would have a very strong incentive to drive negotiations at the table in the direction of lands and resources. So we must be very careful in our approach to negotiations and in our approach to cost-sharing to ensure that we don't fall into the trap of going for the easy solution, which in fact prejudices the negotiations in a way that may be very prejudicial to the province's interests.
Back to the member's question: I think we have to have an approach to negotiations and to a cost-sharing formula that is flexible enough to accommodate the Sechelts and also takes into account that Sechelt will not necessarily be the norm. In addition, if you look at urban versus rural situations, there will be greater flexibility perhaps for land and resource components in rural and far-flung areas of the north than in some of the more heavily developed areas of the lower mainland. All of that -- and this is one of the reasons that cost-sharing and treaty negotiations are so complex -- must be built into the approaches we take, so that we ensure that we don't prejudice the outcome of negotiations or drive the negotiations in a way that could be disadvantageous to any of the groups around the table, to the public or to the third-party interests.
[7:15]
V. Anderson: I've listened with great interest, and it seems to me that what we're saying is to do everything we do without prejudice to anybody -- past, present or future -- and that sounds a little complicated. Nevertheless, I suppose that's the stance we have to live with.
I want to go back over a few things, starting with joint stewardship. It seems to me that one of the difficulties for many people is that when we talk about joint stewardship, it sounds like joint ownership, and that we are saying the province and the aboriginals own the territory together, and therefore are exercising joint stewardship over it, rather than joint participation or joint caretaking, or whatever else. The term has had a meaning of ownership, and this makes it uneasy for people to deal with. I hear the minister using it not necessarily in that way, but I'm hearing it being referred to and accepted. Maybe it's a change in terminology that needs to be taken into account. I understand stewardship very well, but maybe in the context it has taken on a meaning that would lead it to needing to be looked at -- participation, or whatever else, to some other term.
Along with that, it seems to me that partly what I'm hearing people.... It's the stewardship of only the public lands. Then we talk about aboriginal territories. It seems to me that private lands sit in the middle of the aboriginal territories. Again, the public is confused about these distinctions. Sure, you're talking about public lands, but public lands are interrelated and indivisible from private lands. So joint stewardship is joint stewardship of a territory. The territory includes the private land as well as the public, and therefore here is a body that seems to have more authority and say in what's coming in the future than others. It's those terms that begin to get us into trouble.
Hon. A. Petter: The problem with terminology is that meanings get attached to it, no matter how hard one tries; then one tries to seek other terminology. I think the term "stewardship" recommended itself to us and to some of the first nations because it implied more than management; it implied some responsibility to guard and protect the resource. It certainly wasn't intended to connote ownership. If it has been taken in that way, that's a misconstruction, but I accept the fact that if it is the general perception, that may be cause to revisit the question as to whether it's the appropriate term. In fact, it's not so much that difficulty, but because there has not been a clear understanding around joint stewardship that we haven't tended to use the term as often recently. Frankly, we tend to use "interim measures" as a more generic term, partly because we wanted a more flexible term that wouldn't suggest a cookie cutter model and partly because some of the joint stewardship examples used were controversial. It's sometimes better to change the term and explain what you really meant, rather than try to fight against the tide; I appreciate the member's recommendation in that regard. Clearly the term "stewardship" was not meant to connote ownership. It was meant to connote a participation in the management, the husbandry -- if that's not a sexist word -- in the conservation of resources by aboriginal peoples in partnership with government in a period in which government would retain its regulatory authority, a pre-treaty period. Maybe "interim measure" is a safer term.
With respect to the private lands issue, I accept that there is confusion. Part of the problem is that we're talking about outer limits of territories. The term "traditional territories" is one that is understood by first nations and those involved in the treaty negotiations process as connoting the area that a first nation asserts as having been its traditional area of use and occupancy. However, I don't think we've ever suggested in any agreement that there is joint stewardship of the entire territory. Within that territory, there are opportunities for joint stewardship or for interim measures. We made it very clear that for those purposes as well as for treaty purposes, private property is not to be regarded as negotiable. Private property exists, fee simple exists on its own, and it is not subject to either joint stewardship or treaty negotiations. I suppose if you track that through to the Delgam Uukw case, you'll find that the position we took was that aboriginal title had been extinguished with respect to fee simple.
What one has to conceive of -- and these are not always easy conceptions or images to convey to the public -- is the traditional territory, defining a certain area in which first nations may or may not enjoy interests within that area, areas of private land in which they clearly do not -- according to the government, at least -- have any such interests; then the residual area of Crown lands -- at least provincial Crown lands -- in
[ Page 7194 ]
which it is subject to negotiation as to what their interest may or may not be either in the pre-treaty period, through joint stewardship or other interim measures, or in the treaty period, through the treaty negotiations themselves.
V. Anderson: The term "partnership" has come up, and perhaps this is another one that we need to visit. It's a good term. We talked earlier in the discussion about the responsibility of the provincial government for the public. It seems to me that in the minds of the public, we normally use the terms "private" and "public." The private business is what the individuals out there have, and the public business is what is managed by the government in its responsibilities. It seems to me that, for many of them, there would be the public -- the government -- and then there would be the private aboriginal and the private non-aboriginal. It would be a three-way partnership rather than a two-way partnership. And I hear, even with the third parties, that it seems to be that there are two main partners, the aboriginal and the government, and that the third party is an auxiliary but not really a party in the same sense as the other two. So there is a two-way partnership instead of a three-way partnership, whether you're talking about private interests or municipal interests or the people -- however you discuss it. It is that overbalanced partnership where the people at large seem not to have the same kind of balance as the aboriginal people. They want to acknowledge the aboriginal right to be there and to be considered, but it is the imbalance that seems to be coming forth that I hear people being concerned about, and therefore they react negatively.
Hon. A. Petter: It is a partnership that involves everyone, but I would tend to describe it in these terms: aboriginal peoples, just like non-aboriginal peoples, speak through their representative structures. The province is clearly charged with the responsibility to act on behalf of the public at large. I don't think aboriginal peoples are excluded from that, but clearly they are a small minority. The federal government speaks on behalf of the Canadian polity, the Canadian public at large. Aboriginal people also seek an institutional voice to represent their particular governmental interests in these partnerships.
What we really see is first nations governments acting on behalf of first nations citizens, provincial governments acting on behalf of the provincial public at large, dominated -- 97 percent -- by non-status aboriginal peoples, and the federal government as well, to the extent that it is involved in these, representing a substantially non-aboriginal population.
In that sense, all the population is represented. It is represented, though, through representative institutions, and it's just that, in the case of aboriginal peoples, those representative institutions are in the form of bands or first nations, or whatever structure they may choose to represent them. But the relationship between the first nations individual citizens and their representative is much the same as the relationship between the citizen of Saanich South and the provincial government, or the citizen of Richmond and the federal government.
It's a matter of conceptualizing it as a partnership in which there are representative structures representing some of the partners and hopefully -- my fervent hope -- increasing partnerships among the non-representative structures as well, as businesses, individual aboriginal citizens and individuals in the community sit down and start to form their own partnerships.
It's important for people to realize that just as non-aboriginal people look to representative institutions to represent their interests, so aboriginal people do the same. Some of the partnerships involve those representative institutions, and some may operate among the individuals themselves.
V. Anderson: In recent discussions we have talked about cash settlements. When we talk about land, we assume we know that we are talking about the land that's owned by the Crown. We talk about licences and other permits that people have and want compensation for if they are disrupted. I hear people asking where the cash is coming from. Where is it in the budget? How is it arrived at? There may be the assumption that the federal government can very easily come up with whatever cash they have to from somewhere or other. Locally people are asking, for instance, if that will mean that there will be an increase in taxation. Where does the cash come from? Is it there? If we are going to have to settle by cash, what are the different models whereby that cash will come over the period of time? What is the magic by which that cash arrives, whatever amount it is?
Hon. A. Petter: There is no magic, but I think there are some very important observations, and there are some important factors that must be understood about the way in which treaties will be negotiated.
First, I think we have talked a lot this evening about the cost of treaties but not nearly enough about the benefits. The reality is that the current system, in which aboriginal peoples are relegated to very small reserves arbritrarily established by governments under a very paternalistic system, is dysfunctional. Interestingly, what one hears when one strips away the rhetoric from both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people is very much the same complaint; namely, that both do not wish to see a continuation of aboriginal people living in dependence upon government. So there's that much in common to start with.
In addition, there is a tremendous amount of instability because the issue of aboriginal title has become a public issue. It is before the courts and is causing a good deal of angst on the part of investors and others, and unless we start to resolve this issue and produce some stability, we will be denying ourselves economic opportunities. Indeed, that's already occurring. A recent Price Waterhouse study conducted for the federal government estimated that there is about a billion dollars in lost investment coming into the province as a result of that instability. I know the hon. member is aware of that study, because he's quoted it
[ Page 7195 ]
himself. About $800 million is spent every year by the federal government in this province, much of which you'd find -- and I think you'd find common agreement among aboriginal and non-aboriginal people -- is misspent in the sense that it doesn't end up in the kinds of programs or the kinds of pockets that it's intended for.
In addition, there are tremendous social costs borne by aboriginal communities directly in the human suffering, but also by non-aboriginal communities in terms of trying to repair the damage that has been caused by years of failure to come to grips with the social tragedies of aboriginal communities in the form of alcoholism, unemployment, abuse, poverty, infant mortality rates, sickness and any number of indicators. So we have a lot of existing costs out there, a lot of revenue that is being forgone already that could be brought in if we could go about the process in a way that produces stability and starts to help to solve some of these social problems; that's the first point I'd make. This is not a zero-sum game. There are real gains to be made through treaty negotiations both on the investor side and on the side of social costs going from the federal government and from other governments.
In addition, there are tremendous opportunities for economic spinoffs for surrounding communities, and I won't go into detail again, except to just reference the benefits -- as I think I've said a number of times in the House -- of going to Terrace and being made aware in Terrace and other communities of just how much of the business in those communities flows from aboriginal people and how much those non-aboriginal businesses are dependent upon aboriginal communties and how much better off they'd be if the aboriginal communities were more self-sufficient and healthier in terms of their economic and social position. There have been some attempts to net out the benefits against the cost. I think overall the benefits in the long run will far outweigh the costs, but there's no science to this. It's sufficient to note that there are tremendous benefits, certainly in the same kind of order and proportion as the costs.
[7:30]
In terms of the costs themselves, we must realize that even with a cost-sharing agreement, all that will tell us is what the respective shares of the parties are. It won't tell us what the actual cost of an individual settlement is or what the overall cost of all settlements will be. It will provide the structure, and some items will perhaps impose a direct cost on the provincial treasury; others may not have a direct cost on the provincial treasury.
What is important is that once we have that apportionment, assuming it is fair in terms of what the federal government must bear in proportion to the province and what the components are, we must realize that we're not only talking about the settlement component here, but we're also talking about costs of negotiating treaties and of implementing treaties, once negotiated.
If you look at all of that, the question becomes: how do we control those costs? The answer must be that it is done in the process of negotiations. In other words, even with a cost-sharing agreement, we must make sure as we proceed to negotiations that we can afford what we are negotiating at the table. That means that we must have cost control mechanisms in place and mandate control to ensure that the mandates that go to a particular negotiating table will not result in costs in that one negotiation or, through the ripple effect, around the province, which cannot be afforded. And that's quite a challenge.
I want the member to know that my ministry is working in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance, Treasury Board and other central agencies -- the Ministry of Forests and others -- to ensure that those mechanisms are in place. The commitment the Premier gave the other day, which I'll reiterate, is that we will not negotiate at the table for anything more than the province can afford, and that will be part of the ongoing, careful -- and tough -- process of treaty negotiations. But I want to reiterate on a positive note: let's not forget that we're talking not just about costs, but also about tremendous benefits.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. If some of what you said could be put into some kind of vision that people in the province could see some hope in, that would certainly be worth doing. People who are not involved need to see some of the facts up front and also the balance sheet, so they can appreciate that there is light beyond the tunnel. I think it's important to have that kind of vision. Mind you, it can't be such a bright light that it blinds them altogether, but they do need that kind of vision. When we're so closely involved, sometimes we forget that the people out there do not understand.
I still come back to the question of what we can afford, because that's always very relative, and it's one we have to struggle with. I appreciate that you have put down the benefits, because there are many benefits, and both sides of the ledger need to be put out there very clearly in terms that people can see. People are willing to go without or to go through difficult times if they feel it is valid and just, and what we can afford is very relative.
In our country we complain more about taxes than almost anything else we talk about -- even here in the Legislature -- yet we are among the richest people in the world. So what we can afford is relative to the standard of living we have. You have already indicated the uncertainty and instability that we talked about previously. In British Columbia at the moment, as elsewhere in Canada, our high standard of living is being threatened by changes in forestry, in fishing, in mining and in a whole host of things. So we come to settlement of the aboriginal responsibilities at a time of uncertainty. In order to be successful in that aboriginal process, we need to put it into context of the larger picture, so that people can see through it and not blame aboriginals for forestry downplay, fishing downplay and mining downplay, which has already begun to happen in the negotiations that we're caught in. So it's important to find a way of getting on the upside of those instead of the downside, as we are at the moment.
Hon. A. Petter: I have a couple of observations, because I agree in large measure with what the member
[ Page 7196 ]
said. I think -- and this point was made as well by Wendy Grant at the recent Burns Lake event for the Specialty Wood division -- that we've got to start focusing on things like joint ventures with value-added production to show that through cooperation with first nations and with some creativity, we can start to develop economic opportunities that actually enhance and add to communities rather than costing local communities in the sense of depleting their resource base. I know a number of companies have found that by bringing in aboriginal employees they gain a tremendous stability in their workforce and a tremendous knowledge, very often, of local resources and local issues that they wouldn't gain otherwise.
Part of negotiation is not to think that we are negotiating some kind of isolated set of territories, but to think about how we negotiate for the inclusion of first nations within British Columbia society in a way that respects culture, values and traditions but also enables first nation citizens to become full players and to participate. So rather than building walls, we should be building bridges, if I can be allowed a ministerial-type metaphor of the other ministerial variety.
The other thing, that I didn't mention earlier, is about what we can afford. I know it's very popular to say: "Well, we should be indifferent about whether this is coming out of a provincial pocket or a federal pocket. It's all the same taxpayer." But that is not the situation in this case. We have a real opportunity in this area to on-load, if I can use that expression rather than off-load -- we're so familiar with the federal government off-loading expenses onto us. There's a real chance for the federal government to make up for the historic neglect -- that they are principally responsible for -- by on-loading: by bringing some resources into British Columbia.
[P. Ramsey in the chair.]
This is a case where British Columbia is unique. Other provinces, for the most part, have had treaties for decades -- since Confederation in many cases -- and have enjoyed the benefits of the stability that those treaties have afforded. In British Columbia that has not been the case. We have had to live with this history of not having treaties. I don't want to romanticize other provinces -- they certainly have their problems. Nevertheless, we have a peculiar problem here due to the failure to have negotiated treaties; and the federal government assumed responsibility for that -- for the most part. The federal government, therefore, owes a special debt to British Columbia, in particular to British Columbia's first nations, a debt that will be to the benefit of all British Columbians. If we can negotiate a cost-sharing agreement in which the federal government does bear the primary share -- as I believe we can -- and one which starts to address this historic travesty in British Columbia, it should result in an influx of federal dollars to British Columbia principally, at least initially, to benefit first nations. But it will ultimately benefit all British Columbians due to spinoffs, to the opportunities for joint ventures and to the economic benefits that will be produced from the employment that it will generate.
So it's easy to say superficially: "Well, we don't care whether it's the federal or provincial government that's paying for it." As British Columbians, we are used to having our pockets picked by the federal government, but in this area we have a unique opportunity to have the money coming in the other direction. I really encourage the view that we look to the federal government to pay back a debt that British Columbia is owed due to the failure to resolve this issue many years ago, a debt that will redound initially to the benefit of first nations, but ultimately to our overall benefit.
Finally, I would simply say that the question of what we can afford is important, but so is the question of what we cannot afford -- and clearly what we can't afford is the status quo for, over the long term, that is going to cost far more. I welcome the member's suggestion that we try to articulate better the vision of how we deal with the question of costs and benefits, and I certainly would welcome his input into how we might formulate and deliver that vision, because I think he's had more experience in visionary communication than I have.
V. Anderson: I can't resist a comment that was told to me once about trying to be a bridge between people. Dr. Taylor at Union College commented that a bridge is something people walk upon. In other words, if you wish to be one, you have to take the risks that go with it, so you should do it with your eyes wide open.
I was interested in the discussion about opening statements and the principles of the government. I have here the fundamental principles that you know so well, which were put out as part of the treaty negotiations and which give a fairly clear understanding of where the treaty people in the summit were coming from in entering into the negotiation. I wonder if there is a companion set of principles -- nine, in this case -- that the province has to put down beside these; that could be set side by side so that people looking at it can say: "Here is what the summit people have said; these are the principles that come from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; and here are the principles that come from the provincial government." Is there a companion statement that sets out the principles that we have as a government in these negotiations -- not so much negotiating points as the principles that we bring for common sharing and understanding?
Hon. A. Petter: There isn't a comprehensive statement of principles as such. Certainly there are a number of principles which the government subscribes to and has enunciated. By endorsing the task force report, we endorsed the principles contained therein. In my statements I have enunciated a number of principles with a fair degree of consistency: private property is not on the table, for example; there are to be no widespread moratoria or transfers of interests in the pre-treaty period; any agreements must be affordable -- a fair share for British Columbia, with the federal government bearing the primary responsibility. There may be some value in a comprehensive statement at this
[ Page 7197 ]
stage, now that we've come through what I think are two of the three essential pre-treaty steps -- I'm thinking of the Treaty Commission and having an effective third-party advisory process at least starting to come into place. With those two steps, and hopefully with a third on cost-sharing, perhaps we should take those principles, write them down together, and try to come up with a more comprehensive set that could inform people. That might be a useful exercise for the government, and it might be very useful for the public as well, because certainly there are such principles. I don't have them written down in the form the member asks about. It may be useful to do that now.
V. Anderson: I think it would be very helpful at this point if the minister was to put down his wisdom and his experience, because out of that experience have come conclusions that are important for other people: to say where we are now and where we might be going.
One of the areas that I would raise as a result of this is a little different. We talked about land, money, cash transfers and those kinds of things, which are important -- perhaps we'll come back to those. It's a question of how we relate -- and this came up in the discussions about the constitution -- when we recognize, as the government has done, government-to-government negotiations. Then we come into the era of common governance between us in the communities where we live in the province. So far I have heard very little discussion about common or shared governance or governance of the different undertakings side by side -- particularly with respect to aboriginal people, who are citizens of the country the same as everyone else, so they abide under one set of governance like the rest of us. Yet we recognize other governances alongside and intermingled with that. It seems to me that this is also not so much a question of ownership as it is a question of how we cooperate together in our common activities as we live with each other, and how we govern and regulate and cooperate in those. I would be interested to have some comments on the whole area of common governance.
[7:45]
Hon. A. Petter: I think there are a number of issues relating to questions of common governance. As my starting point, I guess, I make the comments that I made earlier. I think what we should be trying to achieve through this process is not isolating communities but bringing communities together. That does invite the question: how are communities to interrelate? On the competing side is a desire not to create a proliferation of overlapping jurisdictions; not to create a very complex mechanism. I think we must be careful, therefore, that when we do create governance mechanisms, we try to minimize the complexity, the overlap and the duplication. To some extent that creates a tension -- maybe that's a healthy tension. I think the way to address it is to ensure that where there are, for example, aboriginal communities contiguous to non-aboriginal communities, there are opportunities for communication and interaction; and that where issues arise in one community that could have an adverse affect on the others, there be formalized mechanisms to deal with that.
I mentioned earlier that in the Yukon agreements, much of the negotiation focused on the need to provide mechanisms to deal with issues in which there was a potential, at least, for conflicts between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities; and the need to build such mechanisms within the structure of those agreements, so that each side would have some certainty not only that they were expected to cooperate but as to how that cooperation would take place. I think that is very important, because a lot of the mistrust that has built up between aboriginals and non-aboriginals -- British Columbia's two solitudes -- has been because there have not been such mechanisms, and aboriginal communities have fallen under federal jurisdiction while other communities have generally fallen under provincial or municipal jurisdiction. That has created a sense of separation. We have to build into agreements or bridges -- I'll go back to my bridges, recognizing that I may be stepped on -- in which there are cooperative mechanisms. We have to ensure that where there are aboriginal interests in the general areas of governance, there is room for participation -- as we've talked about earlier -- with respect to joint stewardship or interim measures, and mechanisms for consultation.
I guess the other issue that I would draw attention to or refer back to is the issue addressed earlier by the Leader of the Third Party when he raised the question: what about the position of those non-aboriginal citizens who may be living on lands which are governed by first nations; isn't there some need to deal with their interests in certain areas, and to provide mechanisms for them to plug into governance structures? There may well be, and that's another issue. So I guess this is a more philosophical answer than a specific one: yes, we have to attend to a common governance; we have to come up with mechanisms that encourage cooperation. They mustn't be too complex and too unwieldy. They must encourage participation and consultation, and hopefully, through that, will come a better degree of cooperation in the future.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and it relates back to the earlier parts when we were talking about policy and philosophical points of view that we have. Is there a task group that has begun to work on this whole area of governance? I think that if people could see this area of governance much clearer, they would be in a better position to understand how the other parts of this could be done.
I raise two areas in that regard. One of the areas that gets raised particularly is: how do you obey the law, what law do you obey, who is bound by what law and who is bound by another law? Has there been some discussion with the Attorney General's ministry in trying to look at the legal aspects of shared and separate legal systems -- not in the sense of either aboriginal or non-aboriginal law at this moment, but of some kind of system interrelationship that will incorporate both which may also be very beneficial in our multicultural society. So maybe the timing is right for this kind of approach of a group that begins to look at this so that
[ Page 7198 ]
we have the opportunity to deal with it..... Some people can say: "Well, I can understand how you could have a legal system as long you are on the reserve, or in an aboriginal community, but how can you have a combined or a mixed legal system for those who are living on common lands and in the urban areas?" So the governance and the legal implications go hand in hand.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, there are some very complex, intriguing and difficult questions around governance that are the subject of much work and consideration. In context, they are the subject of consideration as we enter the treaty negotiations. For example, in the Nisga'a negotiation there is a self-government component to the negotiations. So the treaty mandates division of my ministry, in consultation with other ministries, is certainly looking at governance issues there in terms of how a government structure will work with other government structures and meet the needs of both the first nations and the non-aboriginal community.
However, there are also other issues -- and I think this is what the member was addressing in the latter part of his remarks -- simply about questions of governance and perhaps the justice system that exists day to day. Indeed, the Attorney General's ministry is taking the lead in the justice area, but my ministry also has an interest in this area and has worked in conjunction with the Attorney General's ministry. For example, there are a number of issues in the areas of tribal policing in the Lillooet area, and there have been some attempts to get more aboriginal police officers in the RCMP and other areas. In terms of the court system, there is within the provincial court system an initiative spearheaded by one of the judges to in fact try to bring aboriginal advisers into the process who could work both on and off reserve. In addition, there is serious attention being given on the treaty side to looking at alternatives to the justice system.
The federal government also has a major interest here, and in fact does have a number of justice experiments. There was one on the south Island. It was fairly controversial. The member may be aware of it.
It's an area in which we do believe we must not only be sensitive to first nations but sensitive to the fact that there is a high degree of sensitivity by the public at large and by members of first nations communities to the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system. Whatever we do, we must not in any way sacrifice the sense among the public at large or first nations that the system is living up to those higher ideals that preserve its integrity. But certainly a part of preserving that integrity is ensuring that the system is sensitive to the particular needs of first nations, and the Ministry of Attorney General is working, I know, on a number of initiatives in that area. Probably some of them were shared with the member by the Attorney General during his estimates.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. It seems to me that the majority of the people in the community do not feel that they're going to be directly impacted by the decisions made in land claims because they are off in areas where it isn't right on their doorstep, but they do feel they will be impacted in daily life by what happens in governance and in legal activities. That's closer to home for them.
Moving on from that kind of discussion.... I'm looking at the chart, at the treaty negotiation division. You list the assistant chief negotiator and two other treaty negotiators. Would you like to say something about their responsibilities? Are they essentially the same areas of concern, or are there different areas of direction for those different boxes or program plans?
Hon. A. Petter: Within the treaty negotiation division, there is the chief negotiator, our associate deputy minister, Mark Krasnick, who in a sense oversees the activities of that particular division of the ministry and is generally responsible for the negotiation process. The assistant chief negotiator position is held by Lynn Langford. Her role is particularly directed to all of the provincial activities in relation to preparing for negotiations from the provincial point of view. Within that organizational structure there is at the current time only one treaty negotiator because we have at this time only one treaty negotiation. That person is Jack Ebbels, who is seconded from the Attorney General's ministry and is our negotiator as of last August in the Nisga'a negotiation. Within his group he has some assistant negotiators working with him as part of the negotiating team. If we are able to enter into future treaty negotiations in this fiscal year, then obviously we would seek approval to add an additional treaty negotiator for that purpose.
V. Anderson: Does that then imply that as each treaty negotiation comes on line, another treaty negotiator would be added? In essence, if we had 30 treaties on line, as we expect will come, we would end up with 30 treaty negotiators. Is that what's being expressed there?
Hon. A. Petter: At present, with the Nisga'a negotiation in a sense breaking new ground, we feel that having a team dedicated to that one negotiation was and is essential. Over time, however, as we build up expertise and learn from the experience and start to develop more negotiations, it's our hope that we can develop regional negotiating teams that may be able to handle two or more negotiations, and in that way be more efficient and also make use of the information they have acquired about the particular region. So at this time it may be, in the initial stages, that we're looking at a single negotiating team for each negotiation. But over time, as we develop expertise in the area and develop more than one negotiation in a particular region, the expectation is that each team would take on more than one negotiation.
V. Anderson: Up to this point, most of what people have heard about with regard to treaty negotiations have been court cases that have been settled, or that are still in appeal and to be settled and that will have a bearing when they come down. Could you indicate for us what court cases are waiting to come
[ Page 7199 ]
in fairly soon? I know there are a number of them, but are there those waiting for a fairly quick decision -- not within the next one or two years perhaps, but those which people are kind of waiting to hear from before they go ahead?
Hon. A. Petter: There are any number of litigations, but I think the most important in the immediate future is the series of cases in front of the Court of Appeal. I guess the best known is the Delgam Uukw case, but there are some others as well, dealing with fishing and other aboriginal rights issues. It's expected that the decision will be rendered in those cases sometime later this month. In addition there's the Meares Island case, which has been argued in part before the court and recessed, and is now subject to a negotiation. If that negotiation succeeds, then it may not go to court. If the negotiation does not effect a resolution, however, it's expected that case will proceed back into court in August or September, I believe, and however long the court takes beyond that for resolution. There are any number of other cases dealing with hunting and fishing and other interests around the province, but those immediately spring to my mind.
V. Anderson: I think we might take a break from this at the moment and take another tack. Art is our critic for the Provincial Capital Commission. At the moment we thought we might move into that part of your ministry, and then we can get back to some of the other areas after we've completed that.
A. Cowie: Perhaps the member for Vancouver-Quilchena will start off by asking the minister to give a very brief description of the commission, its duties, and who manages it. That might be the best way to start, and then I have a number of detailed questions.
Hon. A. Petter: The Provincial Capital Commission has been in place for some time, indeed dating back, I believe, to the W.A.C. Bennett era. It has gone through a number of shifts in its focus and emphasis, but at the current time it's a commission that has an overview role with respect to the capital region, and that's defined fairly broadly.
[8:00]
It's there to ensure that the provincial capital is maintained as a region consistent with a capital city, and to enhance and beautify that city. It performs that function in a number of ways. By previous governments it was given charge over various properties. Some are undeveloped, and it derives income from those properties -- as parking lots, for example. Some are developed properties -- for example, the Crystal Garden and the Wax Museum building -- and it derives income from those, although they also entail some expense.
I suppose that one of the most controversial sites the commission has had charge of -- and it has been the subject of some interest in the last week or so -- is St. Ann's Academy. The academy is a structure of tremendous historical importance. Indeed, it predates the Legislature, and it has been a subject of some controversy because of efforts in the past to try to preserve, renovate and restore it. The commission, as owner of the academy, has been very central in some of those controversies.
The commission also has been granted beautification funds in recent years, which it then in turn dispenses -- usually on a cost-sharing basis with municipalities -- for projects it deems of sufficient significance to the capital region to justify expenditure under the aegis of the commission. Those kinds of beautification projects have been of tremendous benefit to the capital. They are evidenced by simply walking around the Inner Harbour and the promenade, much of which was provided through the Provincial Capital Commission. If you travel to Bastion Square, you will notice that the square has been changed recently so that it slopes down to Wharf Street, and it is far more accommodating to the public. The development of the walkway from the Johnson Street Bridge to West Bay Marina is one of a number of things, valued not only by Victorians but by British Columbians when they come to the capital city, that can be attributed to the wise and forward-thinking stewardship of the Provincial Capital Commission and the way in which the commission has dispensed the public funds it has been given for that purpose.
The final thing I would mention that the commission would want me to mention on its behalf is that it has taken a great interest of late in the approaches to the city, the highway approaches in particular. Through some property trading and more recently, in times of scarce resources, through working with Highways to ensure that its plans for upgrading entrances to the city enhance the beauty of the city, the commission has done a tremendous service to the city and to the capital region by ensuring that the work and improvements done by Highways are consistent with the aesthetic goals the commission has for the capital city.
The composition of the commission is a composite of municipal representatives and provincial government appointees who serve without compensation and are a very dedicated group. The commission has in addition a small staff that assists it, particularly in the management of properties.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
A. Cowie: If we could put some order to the way I'll ask the questions, what I would like to do is to concentrate primarily on St. Ann's Academy tonight. I would also like to make sure that we are covering the harbour itself, the possibility of establishing a harbour commission, what that role will be and what the timing is for that. I would like to discuss again briefly the entrances -- although I don't think it would be worthwhile spending a lot of time on that -- and then comment on some of the city projects. Bastion Square is one that seems to be done very well.
Leading into the subject of St. Ann's, perhaps I could say that there are some very nice projects in the harbour. The harbour plan some years ago, back in the early seventies, was done by Arthur Erickson. He did a very stimulating plan, including a bridge that was going to go from the Songhees over to the Coast Hotels
[ Page 7200 ]
area. I thought that was quite a nice scheme. One's professional ability in architecture isn't necessarily parallel to one's business acumen.
I also would like to comment briefly and get the minister's opinion on some projects. For instance, I went down to the Coast Hotels project. I thought that was very nice. Just next door, there's a project that isn't very nice. There is a difference in the waterfront development. I have to admit that I have done some of this work over the years, including designing and building that park in front of the hotel at Laurel Point some years ago -- a very basic park compared to the Coast Hotels project, which has very nice lighting details, planting and that sort of thing.
I would like the minister to comment on public versus private, and get his opinion on that, because the local government, under the auspices of the provincial government, did plan the Songhees project. I don't think that has turned out to be terribly stimulating.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: I think you'll find that the province started the project, and perhaps the city took it over. Maybe that's what the problem is.
I would like to know when the minister thinks the government should stop planning and building and private enterprise should take over. That's a very subtle difference, and it has to work. As the member for Vancouver-Langara said, there are lots of bridges there, and sometimes people get trodden on. I think Songhees is an example of where somebody got trodden on -- as far as the final result anyway. Maybe we're not finished yet.
Let's go to St. Ann's for a minute. I have heard various opinions on St. Ann's. The present project was essentially designed by Paul Merrick, who is one of B.C.'s best architects. If he did the project, I would think that it's well designed or well thought out from a conceptual point of view. I would like to know what his terms of reference were. Were his terms of reference -- it might be best to go little by little -- to keep St. Ann's Academy the way it is? Was it left completely open as to whether he could tear the building down in his planning or keep the structure?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have a copy of the exact terms of reference, but I think I can give you the gist of it and would be happy to find a copy.
Mr. Merrick was retained at BCBC's request when I asked the Provincial Capital Commission to work with BCBC in getting a feasibility study. So BCBC was asked for by the Capital Commission at my request, and they in turn engaged Paul Merrick. I was very happy to see that they did, for the reasons the member has outlined.
It was a feasibility study as to the options for the future of St. Ann's. Clearly, one of the goals was to preserve the parts of the structure that were significant from a heritage point of view. I'm not sure how this was worded in the terms of reference, but in the way Merrick and BCBC approached it, I know the determination was left to them. In other words, they were to weigh the cost and feasibility against a variety of public and private mechanisms and against the value of preserving the property from a heritage point of view in consultation with the community.
For example, in the course of the study they looked at options that would have resulted in removing the Hooper wing. I believe they probably looked at options that would have entailed a further reduction down to the chapel. However, I can also tell you that, due to discussions I had with Paul Merrick in the fairly early stages, it was his very strong view after he had done his initial assessment that there was a much higher heritage value to the property than perhaps had been previously realized. For that reason, that was his determination, and I think his judgment was very sound in that regard. I think members of the community have been saying that for a long time, but it helps to have had that evaluation. That no doubt influenced his view.
If you're asking if Merrick could have come back and said that this building is really of limited heritage value or that the cost of preserving it is so extraordinary that the heritage value is not worth preserving, in my recollection that was open to him. He was certainly given a very broad mandate to come back with a feasibility study on the costs associated with preserving or restoring the academy, including the option that it wasn't feasible.
A. Cowie: I know there have been many studies over the years. I can remember a planning study of the whole precincts here done in 1972 by a very well-known planning firm, which started this out. The Crystal Garden was going to be moved, and there was going to be a bus station underneath. Mr. Williams was essentially going to have his government complex, which he has been wanting for many years, over the bus station -- a very imaginative scheme. At that time St. Ann's was going to be made into a heritage office building, and the chapel was going to be preserved. That was the scheme then, and I guess everybody has certain constraints. At that time there was a tremendous heritage lobby which, if anything, has increased by at least a small portion of the community.
I've been told that the character and scale of St. Ann's are very important to this city -- at least, the heritage people feel they are extremely important. Many people talk about the building as a whole as being a magnificent structure. There are others I've talked with who feel that the building, except perhaps the chapel, would cost in the area of $20 million to restore -- and $10 million of that would be for earthquake-proofing it -- and that you could never change it from being essentially a school into being a performing and visual arts type of building. So this other point of view is that the site is the most magnificent part. The road could be closed, but the site is very important with its open and landscaped character. A building could be part of that, whether it's St. Ann's or otherwise. Some people feel quite strongly that no matter what anybody does, the building itself will never be transformed into a proper performing and visual arts building, including an art gallery.
One could perhaps look at the Vancouver Art Gallery. It is truly a magnificent building, but it cost a
[ Page 7201 ]
fortune to make into an art gallery. It has many problems associated with it. Although it is a delight to go in, it is only useful for hanging pictures and holding certain very limited activities in. I don't know if the minister wants to comment on that in detail, but I'd invite him to make a few comments.
Hon. A. Petter: The Merrick study, the BCBC study, was not conducted in isolation. Indeed, it involved extensive consultation with the community in public forums at various stages of the study, some questionnaires and public feedback, and then it was followed by further input by the Capital Commission itself. The different themes that the member identified were themes that came forward during the course of that public consultation. One of the themes was the view. I think it is certainly widely shared that the building does have tremendous heritage significance. There's a question about whether the Hooper wing does; some would say just the chapel if it got too costly. In general, the public at large -- and certainly the heritage community -- believes the building as a whole has heritage value.
Secondly, there's a strong value placed on open space. Obviously one way that this project could have been made financially self-sustaining would have been to construct, for example, townhouses on the back side of it. But a very strong public sentiment, as the hon. member has indicated, is that the value of the site is very much related to the open space it affords, its relationship to Beacon Hill Park and the fact that it is rare to have that kind of open space in a built-up area of a city.
A third value -- and another one that the hon. member has alluded to -- is the arts value. The arts community has seen in St. Ann's and the grounds -- or some combination thereof -- the possibility of some opportunities for arts facilities. Measured against those three public sentiments is the very strong constraint that Merrick and BCBC and the Provincial Capital Commission were given by the government: that this had to be a feasible option that could be financially justified. It was really the mix of those four that led to the proposal that the government has now put forward to the city for the restoration of parts of the building and the renovation of the other parts.
To follow through on that, I think that what Merrick's report and the Capital Commission's report to me indicated was that a high value was placed by the public on the restoration of at least the exterior of most of the building -- perhaps not the Hooper wing but the remainder of the building. Merrick then told us that it was in fact financially doable. It would cost more than constructing a new building, but it was in the range of what was doable -- probably too expensive in terms of return from renovation for arts as a primary occupant, but doable in terms of office space. It could be converted to office space at a cost that was financially defensible and could service very well the needs of the public sector in particular because of its proximity to the legislative precinct.
[8:15]
In addition, interestingly, it was discovered in the course of this that the economics, particularly in relation to office space, are better with the retention of the Hooper wing. The Hooper wing provides a tremendous amount of floor area, and the cost of removing it would have meant substantial construction costs in essentially capping that end of building and bringing it into conformity with the other wing of the building. So the part that might have been dispensable turned out to be more economical to retain than to dispense with.
In addition, there was a very strong feeling that engaging in major development on the property would sacrifice too much, even though it might produce an economic return. There was some room on the property for accommodating something that was sympathetic, but that anything beyond that would do damage to the significance of St. Ann's and not be responsive to the community concern about the open space. Finally, there was a sense that arts groups could be accommodated but perhaps not to the extent that some would have liked. Nevertheless, a significant component could be made available to arts groups, if done creatively.
The Victoria Conservatory of Music, by virtue of its relationship with the St. Ann's property for some years and the fact that funds had been raised by that group for the renovation of the auditorium at the end of the Hooper wing -- that money was already there, and the group was prepared to support in principle the idea of contributing that to the renovation -- provided an opportunity for arts and community use, because the group is quite prepared to make that auditorium available to the community at large as well as for their own needs. The opportunity for the Victoria Conservatory of Music to move out of the annex, which has no particular heritage significance and is in back of the academy between the academy and Beacon Hill Park, to another location was a very attractive one, because it would open up the whole linkage between Beacon Hill Park and the St. Ann's site. That then invited the possibility of providing an alternative footprint on the property to the Victoria Conservatory of Music, because they're relatively small and have a relationship with the property historically and with the auditorium they wish to use. Therefore we felt we could justify proposing to the city that they be included, in terms of their future development plans, for a small footprint on the property that would accommodate their needs.
Finally, in terms of looking at public access to the heritage structure itself, if the chapel were restored in the interior and the entranceway to the chapel could be utilized as an interpretative centre, that restoration would provide an additional public amenity which, combined with the auditorium, would constitute about 20 percent of the floor area of the building. Because the entranceway was about 5,000 square feet and sufficiently large to meet the needs of an interpretative centre and leave additional floor area, we felt it was an opportunity for arts groups to make use of that space. Part of our announcement was to invite arts groups, if this proposal is acceptable to the city, to make use of that space for a display area or for office space.
[ Page 7202 ]
In summary, I'm saying that what Paul Merrick did, what the Capital Commission did and what we've tried to do in combination, each with slight variations but working to a single goal, is to take all the interests that were expressed out there, including the interest of making this economical -- that's the one I haven't talked about, but I would be happy to in response to the member's questions, if you wish -- and bring them together into a happy whole. There is a recognition of the importance of the open space, of the heritage value of the structure and the need for public access -- two important components of the structure -- for the arts community to have some stake in this property, and for it to be done in a way that can be justified fiscally. I would be very happy to explain why I think this project, as proposed, is justifiable from a fiscal point of view as well. But that's essentially what was being done in an attempt to meld these various visions and interests in a way that would produce the best of all possible worlds for the citizens of Victoria.
A. Cowie: I guess, like all visions, one tries to compromise. One doesn't necessarily have the advantage of a clear canvas and being able to start all over again, so there's always the need to compromise. Some people feel that it would be much better to take a very long vision: tear the building down and start all over again. There truly is that point of view. On the other side, I appreciate the position the minister has just described, wherein one needs to compromise and deal with the realities of today.
I'd like to deal with the office space component on Y lot for a second. It does relate; it evidently makes this economic. Essentially the proposal is to build a new building where we would have Social Services staff and Health, as I understand it. That would be the office building, and the economics of that -- it's government, mind you -- would in fact pay for....
The Chair: Hon. members, there is a division in the main House. We will recess this committee to accommodate that division, and we will be under the direction of the main House after that. In the absence of any direction to the contrary, we will reconvene here at the conclusion of the division.
The Committee recessed at 8:21 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 8:30 p.m.
A. Cowie: What I'm trying to find out through the minister is exactly how the economics is going to work. We essentially have government at the provincial level, we have government at the city level and we have the arts community. We all know that the arts community doesn't have any money -- or they have to go to private industry for money as well as relying on grants. I'd like to find out where the money is going to come from for the office building for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services. Maybe we'll start with that question.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll briefly try to give an overview of how the finances of the project work, recognizing that, in a sense, components of it are not within my responsibility. While the transfer of the bonus density into the PCC is essential for this project to succeed, the actual responsibility for the construction on Y lot is within the purview of the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the minister responsible. Obviously there are grey areas here, and I'll be happy to answer to the best of my ability.
I think what's important to understand is that the B.C. Buildings Corporation was undertaking a building program within the city of Victoria in any event, and part of that building program was to provide space for the Ministry of Health and for the Ministry of Social Services. What we were able to do -- because fortuitously BCBC also did the study on St. Ann's -- was link up that building program with St. Ann's in a way that I think is beneficial to both. The capital cost of the renovation of St. Ann's is estimated at about $16.7 million, and that will be funded in three ways. Firstly, it will be funded from the provision of market rents from provincial government tenants in the renovated St. Ann's building. As the member is aware, the B.C. Buildings Corporation makes its space available to provincial government tenants at rents that approximate market rents that it can justify. I'm dealing here in rough estimates, but I would guess that about $11 million of the cost will be recouped through market rents -- in other words, amortizing the cost of doing St. Ann's over whatever period of time the B.C. Buildings Corporation does so means that they can charge a rent that would justify that expenditure in upgrading St. Ann's.
That, in turn, leaves a gap -- and I'm using fairly rough numbers here -- of about $6 million. That gap is to be made up in the following way. In order to provide the office space that was required in the city of Victoria, the B.C. Buildings Corporation could have developed Y lot to its current density -- I think 3 to 1 is the standard Victoria density -- and then sought additional property elsewhere, which would have cost the corporation additional money. Or it could have done what was done -- namely, to seek a bonus density and seek permission from the city to increase the density to which it could build on Y lot from 3 to 1 to 4.75 to 1, or 5 to 1, as has been done in numerous other projects. That makes the property more valuable to BCBC. Because it doesn't have to acquire additional property, it can effect certain economies of scale, and by market estimates the property would become more valuable to the tune of about $6 million.
There is a relationship spatially and a relationship in terms of what's being done with the two properties. They are very closely linked, so....
Because Victoria normally awards bonus densities in exchange for some public amenity or benefit, such as heritage protection or public space, both of which are being afforded here, what essentially is being done is that $6 million of additional value is being created. If Victoria agrees to allow the development on Y lot to take place to a higher density, that will simply allow BCBC to achieve the goal that it was going to achieve
[ Page 7203 ]
anyway, but to do it for a saving of $6 million that BCBC will then turn over and devote to the restoration of St. Ann's. So what BCBC gains by getting the increased density through cooperation with the city provides to the city in return the open space and heritage value that St. Ann's affords.
In addition, there is a small contribution from the Victoria Conservatory of Music towards the restoration of the auditorium. I have indicated that they have already, over a number of years, saved up a sum of money towards that, and that amount will have to be negotiated.
A. Cowie: Just a very quick question, and then I'll get onto my other questions. Could you tell me the number of square feet that is being planned in the office building? I have a figure, but I'm not too sure it's right.
Hon. A. Petter: If you're talking about the Y lot development -- I take it you are -- most likely we're talking not about one building but about two, and the total lease space is approximately 44,000 square metres or 475,000 square feet.
A. Cowie: Let's say half a million. The cost of that is probably in the order of -- being a government building and all that -- $150 a square foot. So we're talking $60 million or $70 million for the office building, including bonusing -- something like that, I would have thought. Where is the government going to get this money?
Hon. A. Petter: We are now going into areas that are really better addressed to Lois Boone, as the minister responsible for BCBC. By way of general comment, when the government seeks funds for this kind of office building, the way it would do it is through BCBC; or my understanding of BCBC's practice is that it would ensure that the rents cover the costs and then raise the funds against the projected income. The minister could tell you more specifically how that is to be accomplished. My understanding of the projected cost, incidentally, is that it is in the vicinity of $90 million.
The other point I would make is that this was an expenditure already budgeted for and was already planned for as part of BCBC's building program. There is no additional expense here; indeed, all that is envisaged here is a savings of approximately $6 million, and that savings would then go towards St. Ann's, which would result in the ultimate cost to BCBC being exactly the same.
A. Cowie: Bonusing is really something that you do if you agree with the result. In other words, I would doubt whether the commission would build a building too big for the site regardless.... It wouldn't want to spoil the site. In other words, the bonusing is just a little game we all play, and we have all played it many times in order to rationalize something. And I don't care -- if you're achieving something, that really doesn't make any difference.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: I'm just a little guy. But that's all that bonusing really is. The cathedral in downtown Vancouver was bonused. The site next to it was bonused so they could preserve the cathedral in perpetuity. It was a good idea for everybody. You'll notice the building is no higher than the one across the street. I don't know what was really achieved. The developer was a nice friendly guy who decided that he would go along with it, and he did, and it's to the benefit of everybody. So when you get right down to it, it's the quality of the final project that you're really after, and all this money changing.... In 50 years nobody will know how much money anybody had to deal with.
I was a little out on the costs, as I was aiming perhaps a little lower, at a more private-enterprise-type building than what the government would maybe build. [Laughter.] One can laugh, but even McDonald's spends $230 a square foot because they want quality as far as durability goes -- not necessarily in design. I think we had better stay away from all of these building details.
We're not supposed to mention the minister's name, of course, but the minister's name was mentioned just a little while ago. I think that we could examine this particular minister at length through our critic, when we get to that particular minister.
An Hon. Member: Months.
A. Cowie: Months, yes. In fact we've got just the ammunition to do that -- just the person, anyway.
In general, though, I would like to ask if the government has thought about having private enterprise build this building, and leasing it. I'm not suggesting it; I just want to know whether government has thought about having a government rent space built by a private enterprise person -- a developer or a bad developer or whatever you want to call them -- rather than build it themselves?
Hon. A. Petter: Again, that's a question which should be directed to the Minister of Government Services. The way in which the Y lot project will be carried out and the financing for the project are matters that are more within her purview than mine. Provided the bonusing is achieved, that is the relevant goal in terms of the St. Ann's property. I would encourage the hon. member to direct that form of questioning to the Minister of Government Services at the appropriate time.
A. Cowie: In the private business we refer to the minister as a suit. He sells the idea and someone else has to build it and do all the dirty work. We will have to deal with that person when the time comes.
Perhaps we could get into a couple of the other areas that I wanted to get into. One is the harbour itself. As I understand it, the harbour is administered through Ottawa at the present time. There is a desire to have a commission which would be administered through the
[ Page 7204 ]
city -- and, I would take it, through this commission. Is that correct, or is it wrong?
Hon. A. Petter: At the present time, my understanding is that the harbour isn't administered much. There is no harbour authority. There are various property owners -- some provincial, some federal, some private -- and there is no harbour administration as such. There has been a desire in the community for such a harbour administration, and discussions have taken place. The Provincial Capital Commission has been peripherally involved in those discussions because it owns some of the properties in the harbour, but from the province's point of view those discussions have taken place, I believe -- and I stand to be corrected on this -- through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I think that there may possibly be some discussions that will take place through the instrument of the Victoria accord, which was an accord signed between the province and the city of Victoria. I sit as a member on that Victoria accord committee, but it is chaired by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe there have been some preliminary discussions at that level centring around what the most appropriate mechanism would be -- whether it would be through a corporation of one level of government or multiple levels of government or a citizens' oversight committee, etc. I'm not familiar with the details of that, other than what I have been able to impart in these few comments.
A. Cowie: I do know that there is a harbour master who deals with leasing out, or at least deals with complaints and tries to adjust things around. That person is a federal employee. If you are lucky enough to have a boat and you want to dock it in the harbour, you have to pay a fee to another federal employee. So I know that the federal government does have something to do with it. I take it that the exact mechanism of how to administer the harbour will be something that evolves over the next year or two. I'm not going to deal at great length with this. I think the idea tonight is to just get a general idea of where the Capital Commission is going so that we might be able to get more information later.
As the minister said, the entrances to Victoria are very important. I notice there's the odd beautification project, and I certainly think that's a good way of spending money -- planting trees and doing beautification. I just wonder what kind of budget the commission has in this regard, and how many projects they are planning to take on in the next short while.
Hon. A. Petter: The commission has utilized a beautification grant provided by the provincial government for these kinds of projects. Last year, the amount provided was in the order of $324,000. This year, as a reflection of the fact that the government has tried to tighten its belt, that was cut by about a third to $224,000. So the commission will have to pare back on some of its projects, regrettably, but I think for good cause in recognition of a tight financial situation.
[8:45]
A. Cowie: That will pay for about half an acre of park development in Victoria, so we know what to expect.
I thought the recent fixing-up of the end of Bastion Square was very well done. Are those kinds of projects expected to be taken out of this same budget?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes.
A. Cowie: Okay. We're not going to get much done.
At this stage I'd like to turn it over to other members who would like to ask some questions.
Hon. A. Petter: Just to clarify that last point, I think the commission has been very successful at using limited funds in a very creative way by getting municipalities to cost-share, by using the funds as an incentive or as seed money for a project that may have ongoing significance. So the commission has been very good at getting good value for limited funds.
C. Tanner: I should tell the minister that I came in here with the direct intention of suggesting that as you were such a busy person in your other capacities, you couldn't possibly pay any attention to this particular commission. However, you've disabused me of that idea since you discussed with my fellow member here the information you gave him before. I've got to tell you that I'm impressed.
Could you tell us how you visualize the Victoria accord? Could you also tell us who sits on that board?
Hon. A. Petter: I can do the former, but I'm not sure I can do the latter. I've already embarrassed myself once during the course of this estimates debate by not being able to introduce my staff. That was due simply to a blankout, but I'm not sure I'll be able to do this, even with the most careful attention. It's one of a great number of committees I sit on. Maybe the best thing to do on the latter point is to endeavour to get the names for the member and provide them to him, rather than trying to hazard a guess.
In terms of the vision of the Victoria accord, I have some relationship to it because I am the minister responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission. The vision for the Victoria accord, as I understand it, is to provide a vehicle for cooperation between the city of Victoria and the provincial government to facilitate the improvement of the legislative precinct area and areas that are of immediate significance in that area -- such as the Humboldt valley -- to the benefit of both parties. However, if you wish more detailed information on the Victoria accord and how it operates, I would suggest that that would be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
W. Hurd: I just have a brief series of questions about the role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs in the ongoing appeal process with respect to the MacEachern ruling on the definition of aboriginal title. If my colleague the hon. critic has dealt with this issue, I apologize. I want to find out if the minister could advise the committee of what kinds of resources his
[ Page 7205 ]
ministry has made available to analyze this particular court decision, or whether it's entirely at this point within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Attorney General.
Hon. A. Petter: The case was discussed briefly earlier. It is before the courts. I take it that the member's question has to do with the relationship of my ministry and that of the Attorney General to the litigation. The conduct of the litigation is obviously the responsibility of the Attorney General; however, I think the member is aware that this government has indicated as a matter of policy that its preference is to negotiate rather than to litigate. Clearly my ministry, therefore, has a role to play in trying to facilitate negotiations in order to avoid litigation wherever possible. That role often does arise where there is an alternative between litigation and negotiation, and if that alternative presents itself, or if in the wake of a court decision there is an opportunity to seek a negotiated -- as opposed to a litigated -- resolution of this or any other case, my ministry may well have a role in trying to facilitate that negotiation.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that in fact the Crown is appealing a decision on aboriginal title which was rendered initially in favour of the Crown? Is that an accurate reflection of what's happening, or can the minister advise us of what ongoing involvement his ministry or the government might have in this appeal?
The Chair: Hon. minister, insofar as parts of the question come under the jurisdiction of your office....
Hon. A. Petter: This whole question was extensively canvassed in last year's estimates debate, and the member might benefit from consulting that because at that time, of course, the issue was much more immediate than it is now. We're now at the stage where a decision is about to be rendered. But simply put, the assertion is incorrect. The appeal was launched by the first nation concerned, the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en, on a decision of the Supreme Court judge who rendered that decision, and the province is represented as a defendant in that action.
W. Hurd: I just had a brief series of questions as well about the joint stewardship agreements, which I understand have also been canvassed at some length. Can the minister possibly define for the committee the kind of activities that might be ongoing in the coming fiscal year to monitor the agreements that are already in place. Perhaps he could also explain exactly what these agreements bind the Crown to, if anything. Or are we dealing with just memorandums of understanding about such issues as resource stewardship and those types of questions?
Hon. A. Petter: The agreements -- at least, all of the ones that I'm familiar with -- take the form of memorandums of understanding, which are not binding but seek to set out procedures whereby the government will cooperate with first nations on issues of mutual interest relating to the stewardship of land and resources. We have extensively discussed the form of those agreements earlier in the course of this debate, and I won't repeat that discussion. In terms of monitoring the agreements, for the most part.... Again, I don't want to speak for all of them, but the ones that I'm most familiar with or most clearly come to mind have termination dates on them. So they are in a sense evaluated according to whether or not they will be extended beyond those dates.
In addition, we have developed a practice of sharing information about these agreements with the third-party advisory group provincially, and I think we are more diligent than we, and other governments, have been in the past in terms of ensuring that the agreements also share with local communities and that local communities participate in the consultation process and the ongoing monitoring of those agreements.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that there is a sizable investment by other ministries of the Crown in issues specifically related to aboriginal affairs. I'm thinking of the Ministry of Forests, and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Can the minister assure the committee that we aren't seeing an overlap or duplication here? How does his ministry monitor the considerable activities of other line ministries in their relations with the first nations of British Columbia?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, the basic function of my ministry is one of coordination; it is not a service or program delivery ministry for the most part. We have some joint stewardship funds that are directed to areas that fall between ministries' jurisdictions or to deal with agreements that cannot be allocated to one ministry or the other. By and large, my ministry is there to facilitate. Therefore, for the most part, expenditures take place in the line ministries. In addition, the deputy sits on a coordinating body on joint stewardships with other deputies, to ensure that there is a coordinated approach across government to comanagement, integrated management and other forms of joint stewardship or interim measure agreements in the resource sector.
W. Hurd: During debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, the minister pointed out that one of the difficult responsibilities of conservation officers was interpreting the court rulings on the rights of aboriginal people to access the food fishery and to hunt for food supplies. Can the minister advise us of the role his ministry takes in assisting the Ministry of Environment, in particular, in providing advice to conservation officers who have to deal with this rather difficult issue almost every day in the performance of their duties? Is it totally within the purview of the Ministry of Environment to deal with these issues, and what kind of direction are they receiving from this minister?
Hon. A. Petter: On significant issues, public policy falls within a line ministry's responsibilities.... It it involves an aboriginal issue of some significance, my ministry -- particularly the policy component -- will very often work with the line ministry. In this
[ Page 7206 ]
particular case, the member may be aware that the two ministries worked together in developing a set of interim guidelines on sustenance use of provincially regulated fish and wildlife resources. I've commented on that set of guidelines at some length in my introductory remarks and during the course of debate.
To put it in a nutshell, I think it has been a very successful exercise, which involved some prior consultation with first nations and with non-aboriginal users of the resource. There is an ongoing consultation mechanism built into it to ensure that first nations and non-aboriginal users work together to develop a common set of understandings. Those guidelines help to clarify some of the very difficult issues that conservation officers face in the interim. I'm happy to simply relate to the member what I related earlier to other members -- namely, that at the recent B.C. Wildlife Federation convention there was a very positive response to these guidelines from members of the federation, as there had been from the aboriginal community. I believe the guidelines are a really positive example of how government can bring groups together to work on common problems -- rather than set groups apart -- and help to clarify a situation so that resources can be better conserved and managed.
W. Hurd: Also, during the course of that estimates discussion, it was noted that under the previous interim guidelines to which the minister referred, there was a requirement for conservation officers to ask for and receive proof of membership in an existing first nation -- as opposed to an aboriginal person living off reserve. It is the understanding of the opposition that, in fact, that requirement has now been dropped. Can the minister confirm that when it comes to those interim guidelines in which his ministry has been at least peripherally involved, the requirement for proof of band membership or first nation membership still exists?
Hon. A. Petter: In fact, the hon. member has it backwards to some extent. There were no previous interim guidelines; in fact, there was something of a legal vacuum created by the court decisions that articulated the existence of aboriginal rights but didn't define them, which made it difficult to enforce. The existing interim guidelines try to fill that vacuum and set out certain conditions. One is that sustenance rights ought to be exercisable by first nations citizens within their traditional territories. The guidelines in fact establish a relationship between traditional territory and the first nations citizen that was not previously articulated in provincial policy or spelled out with the same degree of clarity in the court decisions. I think the situation is somewhat the reverse of what the member suggested.
[9:00]
W. Hurd: Can the minister not confirm, however, that the court decisions regarding the use of the resource for aboriginal food or fishery are confined to so-called status aboriginals, or is it his understanding that they apply to every member of the aboriginal peoples of the province? There was an understanding during the previous debates that it was just those people considered status or treaty aboriginal people who were affected by these court rulings and therefore subject to the interim guidelines that the minister alluded to.
Hon. A. Petter: I think perhaps this kind of detail can be taken up with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. But suffice it to say that the court decisions are remarkably unclear on the question of the relationship between a first nations citizen and the territory in which rights are to be exercised by that first nations citizen. That's one of the issues that the interim guidelines seek to clarify. If you want further detail, hon. member, on the content of the interim guidelines, I think the Minister of Environment, Lands, and Parks has greater familiarity with those guidelines than I do -- because he's in charge of their enforcement.
W. Hurd: I can't really grasp that answer, because it was acknowledged that at one time that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks was asking for proof of band membership in the field. That requirement, I understand, has now been eliminated.
I want to ask one other brief question about the report that was recently handed down by Forestry Canada on the state of the stewardship of the forests on band lands. I think the minister will be aware that that report pointed out a serious deficiency in the level of forest management on band lands. Would it be the responsibility of this ministry to negotiate with Ottawa to try and acquire the funding to address the issue of backlog planting and to address the level of forest stewardship on band lands in British Columbia?
Hon. A. Petter: No, it would not; that's a matter of federal responsibility.
W. Hurd: When we're dealing with joint stewardship agreements, are we not dealing with band lands in any way? How can the province not take an interest in an issue that obviously affects some bands in the province who, for reasons of forest management practices in the past, may in fact have less ability to earn a living off their treaty lands or their band lands, based on commitments the federal government has indicated it should make to those bands to assist them in meeting some of the forest management obligations that were not met in the past?
Hon. A. Petter: I suppose it's conceivable in the context of treaty negotiations that some of these issues could come to the treaty table, but with respect to the operations of my ministry, those operations concern themselves with areas of provincial jurisdiction. The joint stewardship policy, for example, is very much directed at the question of how the government discharges its fiduciary obligation to ensure that there is consultation with first nations with respect to the disposition of provincial Crown lands, decisions regarding planning of provincial Crown lands and facilitating first nations participation in
[ Page 7207 ]
decision-making around provincial Crown lands, as well as opportunities for comanagement in other activities around provincial Crown lands. That is the preoccupation and the direction of the ministry.
D. Symons: I have just a very few questions that relate to my role as critic of Transportation and Highways. There are quite a few places where highways, and possibly ferries and railways, have crossed what were traditionally aboriginal lands, and I am wondering how your ministry, in the past and currently, becomes involved in the workings of these arrangements. I'm sure there are many things that have happened in the past that your ministry is trying to correct now in a good number of cases. I know the Musqueam band felt that it wasn't properly represented when there was a development put in there -- the golf course and all the rest. I'm wondering if the same has possibly happened with highways, ferry terminals or whatever in the past and if your ministry is now saddled with trying to straighten these things out.
Hon. A. Petter: I could talk at great length about many aspects of this issue, and I have already, during estimates debate, talked at some length about it. My ministry's role is principally one of support to line ministries that are responsible in these areas in providing policy advice -- in some cases some advice on negotiations, etc. One of the difficulties that the member alludes to, I'm sure, is the fact that in many cases throughout this province there are hundreds of roads that allegedly are in trespass on reserve land. We are proceeding, through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, to try to effect a negotiation of the most contentious of those. I've also mentioned earlier the efforts made by my ministry, through new policy forums that we are setting up with aboriginal groups, to see if we could negotiate some mechanism for resolving those disputes, should negotiations fail. So that is one way in which my ministry is assisting.
There are also other issues about hydro rights-of-way and potential trespasses there which arise from time to time. Similarly, my ministry provides advice in the form of policy advice and occasional support in the form of support for negotiations, etc., where those issues arise.
D. Symons: I am wondering if your ministry has to have a split personality, in a sense, because you might see where some injustice has been done to an aboriginal group in the past, and your ministry as government might be responsible for the financial process of correcting that injustice. It could put you into a difficult spot, in the sense of being an advocate for a group that might be fighting against what the government is doing. I sympathize with the situation you may find yourself in on some occasions.
Another situation that arises and has been in the press recently is the problem of blockades by first nations people on highways, and I suppose it could happen in other places as well -- public facilities. Sometimes these blockades -- if we take a highway, for example, or the Kelowna bridge -- may not necessarily have a connection with that particular facility. I note the most recent one that was threatened, the floating bridge in Kelowna, was more about overrepresentation -- or maybe the lack of it -- at the summit conference and some concerns about the Treaty Commission Act, which are not directly related to the Kelowna bridge at all. I'm wondering if the minister might comment on how he feels about this sort of action being taken by aboriginal peoples -- using public lands as a focal point for an issue that does not relate to the particular site they are using as a focal point, if you follow what I'm after here.
Hon. A. Petter: This gives me an opportunity to clarify -- as I did earlier, but I would be happy to do it for the member because I know he raised the issue in the House -- a statement that was attributed to me in the press on this very matter. Basically, I will just reiterate what I recall saying at that time, and that is that certainly all citizens of the province have a right to free speech and to express their views, provided they do so in a way that does not abridge the law. I understand that first nations have various frustrations about a variety of issues and certainly they, no less than any other citizen in the province, should have a right to express those points of view. However, should they do so in a way that does abridge the law, then I think they, like other citizens, should expect legal consequences would flow from that.
I would just say by way of general comment that very frequently one of the problems that has faced government, because there has been such a neglect of aboriginal issues, and rights for that matter -- even in the narrow sense of traditional property rights, where property is taken away from aboriginal people through, say, road realignments, without any legal means -- is that these disputes do not centre on the issue that first might have appeared to be in dispute. That makes it more complicated and difficult to resolve. I indicated earlier in discussions with other members that because we are now moving to a treaty negotiation process and setting up other forums, some of these disputes that traditionally have not lent themselves to resolution because they have been proxies for other issues may now lend themselves to resolution, because the other issues can be dealt with in a straightforward and upfront way in other forums. So I'm hopeful -- where legitimate road disputes do arise around questions of who owns the road right-of-way, for example -- that those can be addressed through negotiation.
With respect to other forms of demonstration and activity, that will have to be evaluated by the Attorney General's ministry and the police according to the legal requirements at hand.
V. Anderson: I wanted to go for a few minutes to the last division, the administration management division. We missed all of those technical things, so I want to take a few minutes on those. If you might comment on the increase in staffing over the years.... I know it's because you've come from programs.... You've gone from 30 to 96 in the last couple of years and are adding another 16 staff, I believe, this current year. According to the estimates you've gone up 16 this year.
[ Page 7208 ]
So if you'd like to comment on that, perhaps that would be helpful to us.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, well staff has gone up, given the increased mandate of the ministry. But in fact, I'm happy to report -- I think I'm happy to report, although I may find myself short-handed -- that the increase is not as great as might appear.
During the course of last year, as I mentioned earlier, the Nisga'a negotiating team was reconstituted. In fact, we took a different form of negotiating team; rather than relying on line ministry personnel, we created a freestanding team. That accounts for seven of the increases. That was approved during the course of last year. The FTE adjustment, however, isn't made until the next estimates book, according to the practice as I understand it. So that appears as an increase. In fact, it was an increase last year due to the creation of this new negotiating structure.
One additional increase takes place because part of the financial oversight of the ministry conducted by the Ministry of Economic Development is now moved over into this ministry. So that's really a transfer of a person from Economic Development.
The remaining eight are additions that can be attributed to the reorganization of the ministry, in order that the ministry can now carry out in a more effective fashion the new mandate it's been given. Those eight are spread throughout the ministry in various roles, all of which we have discussed at some point during estimates.
V. Anderson: I'm looking at some of the financial items within the ministry, just for a brief explanation. Under Policy, Planning and Research, $150,000 is listed under fees, allowances and expenses. I'm just curious what $150,000 in that area might be.
Hon. A. Petter: Those moneys are directed to the third-party advisory committee for honoraria and costs.
V. Anderson: Then we move over to public servant travel. I notice that Aboriginal Relations is $212,000, and Policy, Planning and Research is $189,000. So it makes about $400,000 between those two. Do you want to comment on the travel in those two areas?
[9:15]
Hon. A. Petter: I think it's an excellent question; however, I'm pleased to report that there's an excellent answer. The excellent answer is that if you look within that division of the ministry, you'll find that there are two components that require extensive travel: one is Treaty Mandates; and the other one has to do with the consultation function, which is operated out of the policy division. Both of those functions require frequent travel -- in order to relate to treaty negotiations in one case, and to relate to various consultations that must take place in connection with, say, the Nisga'a negotiations and other negotiations throughout the province.
V. Anderson: Next is 20, which has to do with professional services. I presume these are consultants, but there's over a million dollars among the different categories of professional services, which presumably, if I'm right, is over and above salaries -- and it's a quarter of what the salaries themselves normally would be for the FTEs.
Hon. A. Petter: I think there are two general explanations that may assist the member in understanding that figure. One is that because of the nature of some of these issues that arise, we do engage people with specialized knowledge about particular areas -- resource issues, whatever. It wouldn't make sense to retain those people on a full-time basis; it does make sense to utilize their expertise from time to time around the vast array of issues that can arise and where particular expertise may be sought. The other is that a substantial component of that relates to the communication and consultation function, to which we have made a major commitment through the Treaty Commission and with the federal and first nations governments to try to engage in better public information-sharing, and that will take place as well through that allocation that the member has identified.
V. Anderson: Following up on a couple of others, under 40 we have $490,000 in the management services division for communication. Then under 68, management services again, we have $365,000 for information and communication. So that's getting close to a million dollars in those two categories just for communication and information.
Hon. A. Petter: The portion that's attributable to STOB 68 has to do with information systems within the ministry -- computer systems and those kinds of support systems that are increasingly necessary in this modern world in order to evaluate data, do imaging or evaluation, etc. The other relates to communications -- advertising, publicity and that form. But they're quite distinct things, and 68, as I say, relates to systems rather than to communications in the other sense.
V. Anderson: The management services division, which is handling your office.... It's $281,000 under one category, and $660,000 in the other category. Again we're coming close to a million dollars in those two categories. I know you've moved or are moving into new offices, and I'm wondering if that's taken into account.
Hon. A. Petter: In the case of STOB 30, my understanding is that that comprises two categories of expenditure. One is standard office expenses -- mail costs, courier, that kind of thing -- but also entailed within that is the cost of meetings and meeting rooms for negotiations, consultations, all of those kinds of activities, which is a significant cost.
On the question that was raised in relation to STOB 65, yes, the cost of the new building is taken into account there. I may say that it's our view that bringing the disparate elements of the ministry together into the
[ Page 7209 ]
new building will produce some efficiencies in terms of communication, in terms of the ministry's effectiveness. Any additional cost that arises from the rental of the building itself is, I understand, in the estimate.
V. Anderson: Under 80 in the management services division we have grants of $125,000. I was just curious to know what those area grants might be.
Hon. A. Petter: That's a little institution that I inherited from the previous government known as the minister's discretionary fund. It means that when the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast...
D. Symons: Who's that?
Hon. A. Petter: I think he's your leader in some respects. He asked me the other day whether or not I could provide $700 to fund an RCMP-sponsored program to better relations with aboriginal peoples in his community. I was able to say that I could do so. It's a discretionary fund that enables small expenditures to be made to assist aboriginal groups and organizations in a variety of activities, and enables the ministry to provide some small means of support outside of the larger categories of expenditure to a maximum of $5,000.
V. Anderson: I think I heard you say a maximum of $5,000 for any one. I think it's very useful to have that because those funds can be very helpful at critical points to people who are trying to almost get to something, but can't quite make it. I'd affirm that.
Under 82, we have contributions. Perhaps we could look at each one of these to see the nature of the contribution. In Aboriginal Relations there is $2,775,000, and then there are some smaller amounts down below it, including the Provincial Capital Commission. Perhaps you could just explain the contributions under STOB 82.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll try to deal with them one at a time; it may require a slight pause between them. The first, which is the $2,775,000, is a combination of the joint stewardship program contribution of $575,000 and the heritage, language and culture program, which is $2.2 million. Next in the column is $40,000, which is to assist first nations with information-sharing. The $320,000 is for pilot projects to assist first nations in engaging in consultation on projects related to treaty negotiations. The $750,000 is for the Treaty Commission. The $224,500 is the beautification grant to the Provincial Capital Commission. And the $2.823 million is the First Citizens' Fund contribution that we've already discussed.
V. Anderson: Is the $750,000 for the Treaty Commission seen as operating expenses, and are all the other funds that are required for it this year going to come from the federal government?
Hon. A. Petter: That represents the estimate at the time the estimates were prepared of the provincial share of the Treaty Commission costs. In fact, the figure I now have is more likely to be $694,000, which represents the provincial share for the Treaty Commission. The federal share is somewhat larger.
V. Anderson: I know we referred a number of times to the $2.2 million for heritage, language and culture, but we really didn't discuss it in any detail. Could you discuss a bit of that here?
The Chair: There is a division in the House. We will recess to accommodate the division and reconvene at its conclusion.
The Committee recessed at 9:27 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 9:34 p.m.
Hon. A. Petter: In answer to the question that was posed prior to the break by the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, the first peoples' heritage, language and culture program was established, with a council, to dispense funds to support culture, heritage and language programs and facilities for first nations. There is an operating-grants component of $1.2 million and a capital component of $1 million. The operating component of the program has been operating for some years now -- a couple of years, in any event. The first capital grants were provided last year, and I think I outlined in my opening address what those grants were. That part of the program is now up and running, and we look forward to further capital grants being provided over the course of the program.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the way the minister has been dealing with those.
There is one other item that I would like to just comment on for a moment. First of all, I would like to thank the minister for the opportunities we had previously for input from the staff. This has made it much easier for all of us to work together and follow through on the estimates, and it improved the clarity of understanding.
There are issues that come up from time to time, and I want to share one that happened to come up recently. This one comes from United Native Nations and it's a concern about the closing of a weekend school at Rivers Inlet, B.C. I know that this also has to do with education, but they are writing with the concern -- 75,000 aboriginal people in the province are concerned -- and they liken the closing of this school to actually having to have their children go away to the residential schools. In their representation they see that, although it's done in a different form, it's the same result to the peoples of the community: their community school is lost and they are forced, once again in their history.... They are hoping that this can be reversed and that consideration can be given to this. Is this the kind of situation that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs would work on with the Ministry of Education to try to resolve on behalf of these people?
[ Page 7210 ]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, certainly. We would ensure that the first nation's -- or in this case, the United Native Nations' -- concerns were drawn to the attention of the Ministry of Education and that the Ministry of Education was dealing with the issue and was aware of the concerns. And we would -- as much as we can, because there are many such issues -- monitor the issue and ensure that it is being dealt with. Where it raises a more substantial policy issue, we may get further involved. In respect of the particular issue, it was drawn to my attention, and I have spoken to the Minister of Education. I know that she is aware of the issue and I believe it will be followed up on by her staff, and no doubt there may be some further checks by my staff as well.
V. Anderson: I think it's important, and I brought it up as an illustration, hoping it was already being dealt with. It seems to me that people need to know that there is cooperation and follow-through, because so often letters get filed someplace -- and for the people waiting at the other end, every day is a century. So it's important that these things get done.
I'd like to thank the minister for his cooperation and his responsiveness, and to thank the staff especially for their patience even this late in the evening. Thank you all very much.
Vote 9 Approved.
Vote 10: ministry operations, $14,954,959 -- approved.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 9:39 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]