1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 10
[ Page 13799 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Law Clerk: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Prayers.
J. Beattie: I'm very pleased today that I have three constituents from my constituency of Okanagan-Penticton in the chamber -- at least, I believe they're in the chamber right now. They are Dave Palmer, Ruby Palmer and Barb Palmer. They're here to make the move from the University of Victoria back to Naramata. I'd ask the House to make them welcome, please.
DAY OF MOURNING FOR WORKERS KILLED OR INJURED ON THE JOB
D. Streifel: I rise this morning to make a statement on behalf of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today, April 28, is a national day of mourning, which honours workers in British Columbia who were killed in workplace accidents or by work-related diseases last year. I know I speak for all members of the House when I say that we mourn the 199 men and women killed on the job during 1994 in British Columbia. To their families, friends and co-workers, I extend my deepest sympathy and respect for your grief and loss. Their deaths are a tragic loss to you and your communities.
I would also like to recognize all of those workers who suffered workplace injuries and illnesses last year. I wish them a speedy recovery.
Most British Columbians may not be aware that there are so many workplace accidents and work-related illnesses across the province. In 1994, 199 people were killed, almost 198,000 workplace injuries occurred, 4,230 workers were permanently disabled and 77,000 workers had to take time off work because of injuries. In 1994, 140,785 new claims were paid, and compensation costs totalled almost $770 million. These statistics are grim reminders of the social and economic costs of workplace accidents, but no cold, impersonal statistic can convey the loss, pain and suffering caused to workers and their families. Workplace accidents are a tragedy for us all. On this day of mourning we quietly reflect on the commitment and dedication of the workers of British Columbia. To honour the dead and injured, our flags are at half-mast.
I am sure all members of this House will agree that continuing to improve safety conditions, rehabilitation and compensation services for injured workers will demonstrate our sincere respect for the dead and injured. Our top priority must be reducing workplace accidents. I am pleased to report that the rate of injury has decreased for four years in a row and that the fatality rate in our workplaces has declined over the last ten years. New return-to-work initiatives have resulted in the replacement of almost 2,500 injured workers. Because 25 percent of WCB claims relate to back injuries, early intervention pilot projects for back and repetitive-strain injuries were implemented and evaluated. Rehabilitation programs for workers with back injuries have proven their success. Ninety percent of workers participating in the five-week back evaluation and education program were restored to work or were in a job search or in retraining within three months of completing the program. This program is known as BEEP.
We have made much progress in making our workplace-safer. We know that more needs to be done. For example, we know that logging and mining remain the most dangerous occupations. Last year 27 loggers and ten miners died in workplace accidents, and five workers were killed in sawmills. In response, regulations for improved safety in forestry operations, blasting and underground work will be drafted for public hearings in 1995. The WCB will be drafting regulations for construction, safety, wood products manufacturing, firefighting, emergency rescue, underwater rescue and traffic control. In the retail food and health care sectors, for example, tripartite working groups have established a goal of reducing injuries by 10 percent within five years. The WCB will continue to work in partnership with labour and industry to reduce the number and severity of workplace injuries and diseases. Improving the compensation system will remain a priority of this government.
The workers of British Columbia deserve our greatest respect. It is most fitting that we demonstrate our commitment to our workers and their safety today, on this day of mourning. Please join me in a minute of silence, in memory of those workers whose lives have been lost in the service of their families, their employers and all British Columbians.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. What I am going to do is get the response to the ministerial statement and then ask the House to observe the minute of silence, if that is appropriate.
A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, I will end on the note that the hon. member for Mission-Kent has. Indeed, at a moment like this and on a day like today, it's an honour to respond to the hon. member's introductory remarks on this matter.
Every year when we members most appropriately allocate this time to remember those who have been seriously or critically injured -- especially those who have lost their lives in the workplace -- we've remarked on those casualties in the past, especially in the extractive and heavy secondary industries, but especially in mining and forestry, as the member mentions. We still see these casualties. Indeed, when I travelled with the task force on workers' compensation that the official opposition put forward last year, we met several of those injured in the workplace. No one can deny the profound impact on lives and families resulting from these injuries and casualties due to the accidents in the workplace.
To set aside a day such as today is indeed most appropriate. But I want to add that I detect a disturbing trend worth reflecting on, on a day such as today. Injuries and casualties are becoming more, not less, profound and evident -- not the frequency. We're all pleased, as the member for Mission-Kent mentioned, that the frequency of such casualties perhaps has lessened. But with our kind of economy and technology, actually, the workplace is becoming more dangerous to more
[ Page 13800 ]
people. We live in a socioeconomic environment that is surrounded with the potential for chemical accidents, electrical accidents, more dangerous fire hazards -- despite the higher fire protection standards -- and accidents resulting from heavy machinery, where in a split second the difference is life or death.
Indeed, I reflect on the past year myself. I happen to believe that many people find themselves noticing this, too: we're paying far more attention than we used to to the stories in the news of those injured and those losing their lives in the workplace. I reflect especially on a longshoreman who lost his life in North Vancouver. We remember the firefighters in Seattle. In the past year, who can ever forget those of the rescue team who lost their lives just off the Queen Charlottes?
Also, where it was assumed in the past perhaps that these were safe workplaces, the livelihoods of clerical staff, nurses and professionals are far more dangerous now than in the past. I'm pleased to see that there are groups going around the province and this country pointing out to all workers that all workplaces need to address the question of safety. So I join the member for Mission-Kent -- and I think we all do -- in that a day such as today to remember those who experienced such tragedies is most appropriate.
[10:15]
In that context, we too feel not only that the Workers' Compensation Board has a role but I would say it has an increasingly different role and will have an increasingly potentially profound role in our society -- a necessary role. The concept of safety will not be addressed as casually as in the past, but we will have to really come to terms with the workplace as a potential place of life and death.
So as we remember these casualties in the workplace on a day such as this, I would ask all members to join in the request of the member for Mission-Kent to remember, in a minute of silence, those workers whose lives have been lost in the service of their families, their employers and all British Columbians.
Deputy Speaker: Could I ask all members to please stand and observe that moment.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, JOBS AND THE ECONOMY
J. Beattie: I rise today to speak on the importance of investing in science and technology.
Science is not magic. Science is a method of discovery, a method of discovering the secrets of the world, and indeed, these important discoveries do not happen overnight. Science requires a long-term commitment, for the very nature of science is the accumulation of pieces to a larger puzzle before those secrets that we are so anxious to discover are revealed.
And you know, science has not let us down. There have been significant disappointments in the production of weapons in this world, in the production of harmful chemicals and in technologies that indeed have been, in some cases, an affliction on the human race. But to a great extent, we've been released by science: by the discoveries in medicine, by the discoveries in physics -- the physics that helps design our buildings -- the discovery of electricity and many more things that we find surrounding us every day.
I am concerned, however, that the failure of successive federal governments to recognize the importance of investing in science -- particularly in science and technology in British Columbia -- is threatening the underpinning of our communities. Not only are our federal politicians more and more tying important scientific research to the very narrow scope of serving business and tying the hands of our scientists, they are continually cutting costs. It's a shame to note that of all the G-7 countries, Canada is ahead of only Italy when it comes to investment in science and research as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Unfortunately for B.C., despite the fact that we represent 12 percent of Canada's population, that means we receive only 7 percent of science and technology spending. We have recently had our KAON project killed. In the last federal budget we note that a review of spending on science and technology is being announced. But in my constituency, as well as areas across British Columbia, we have already seen agricultural spending cut back.
I fear for more cuts not only at the Summerland Research Station in my constituency but at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory at White Lake Road in the hon. Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture's constituency. I'm concerned that if we believe that science and technology can answer important questions and solve some of our daily problems in this world in our forests and in our environment, we must continue to invest, and I fear that the federal government is losing sight of that.
Contrary to the initiatives of the federal government, this government in British Columbia is continuing to increase our investments in the areas of biotechnology, forestry and energy. For example, in the last two years we have invested $66 million in 700 projects in our Technology B.C. program. These investments reap the benefits of two permanent jobs for every $100,000 invested and a direct payback of $2.64 for every dollar invested. We've increased the program's budget in consecutive budgets, and we will continue to do that. We will spend $850,000 in this coming budget on our technology assistance program to develop new and innovative projects and programs. Our Partners in Science Awareness program will provide $400,000 in grants to increase our awareness of science. In 1994, $1.3 million was provided for an information highway test network to foster and coordinate advanced telecommunications. Another $5.5 million of Skills Now money was directed at new applied technology programs. In fact, the Okanagan University College received $250,000 of this money.
For a region like mine, these investments have a real impact. They provide real benefits in terms of the products they produce. For example, the Summerland agricultural research station has produced a controlled atmosphere for tree fruits, has developed new strains of fruit that have become famous worldwide, and has developed advanced fertilization and irrigation techniques that are used around the world. The opportunity in my constituency for students to study at the Summerland Research Station or at the radio astronomy observatory are important tools for young people in my community.
[ Page 13801 ]
The scientists themselves that live in my community participate in my community in a very real way by serving on boards, writing in local papers, and espousing the benefits and merits of education and science research to a specific population that, being in the Interior, is generally out of the mainstream of science research. The dollars that come from the investments in my community are real dollars that stimulate the economy.
The benefits of science and technology and of investments in science and technology are all around us. The challenge in the future will be even greater to meet afflictions like AIDS and other diseases and to produce greater amounts of food for a growing population. Those are challenges that can only be met through a continued level of and source of funding for the development of science and technology. I believe that all of us must encourage our federal government to make the investments that are required to keep science and technology healthy in Canada and in British Columbia.
W. Hurd: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the important subject of the science of technology and its impacts on the economy. I know there is still the expectation out there that as we move towards the year 2000, the governments will be the ones to continue to drive research projects and research dollars. However, I can tell the member that, having had the opportunity in the past year to experience firsthand some of the excellent work that's going on in the private sector, British Columbia is becoming an exciting place in which to invest, an exciting place for research and development projects.
Recently I had the opportunity to tour BCIT and look at some of the projects that are going on there with respect to scientifically enhanced grass seeds that produce grass in rather dry climates and have the potential to be marketed throughout the world. I also had an opportunity to go through the M&B research department in Burnaby, which is, of course, responsible for developing the Parallam beam -- a laminated beam -- that now has worldwide market impact and market share. I have also toured the wood science department at UBC, in which composite wood products are being developed that have the potential to establish British Columbia as a world leader in the development of new wood products. Of course, Discovery Parks Inc. in Burnaby is another high-tech mecca in British Columbia in which many, many innovative ideas are being developed by young entrepreneurs.
I think the common denominator in all of these developments is a real drive on the part of the private sector in our province to begin to devote new funds and new energies to developing new technologies, new products and new ideas for the marketplace. As I've said in this House in the past, one of the real possibilities for British Columbia is to become a wworld leader in environmental cleanup technology. As we know, the population in the world is burgeoning, and the environmental cleanup and pollution problems are a mess. We have the ability in British Columbia to develop technologies for cleaning soils, for dealing with effluent and for pursuing those kinds of solutions which will enable countries in the Third World to clean up their own environments and to pursue sustainable economies.
So I think that the future is bright for science and technology in British Columbia. I think we are seeing more willingness on the part of the private sector to develop new products, to develop new technologies and new expertise in-house. I can tell the hon. member that it is happening in British Columbia. There are tremendous opportunities, particularly at the wood science department at UBC, which are being developed. I think that in wood science alone, British Columbia has the potential to be a world leader. I certainly welcome the member's comments about the importance of developing new technologies in science and encouraging that type of investment. I know that those types of initiatives are underway. They're a welcome part of the new economy in British Columbia.
J. Beattie: I'm glad the member has responded. I believe that he has touched on a few points regarding the investment of the business community. I know that this member will support the Forest Renewal B.C. initiative because of exactly that focus on redirecting our significant resources into a public forum where the business sector is supporting that drive towards new technologies. But I should note for the record that much of what the hon. member spoke of in terms of science and research technology activities in British Columbia are driven by government dollars: BCIT, UBC and all of the other community colleges around this province that have science and technology programs -- government dollars, paid by taxpayers. In fact, they are the lifeblood of science. That's why we in British Columbia must continue to push the federal government to make good on their commitments to science and technology. Unfortunately, we've seen a falling off of that.
As an example for the members, I want to say that in the last budget, which killed our KAON project here in British Columbia, an additional $800 million was directed to the space program for Ontario, and $1.7 billion went to Quebec for science and technology programs. We, representing 12 percent of the population of Canada, must get the federal dollars that we need and deserve here in British Columbia. As this province grows and, as the hon. member stated, becomes more and more the hub of investment in Canada.... I'm glad to hear that the hon. member is very candid and frank in mentioning that this province has the highest increase in offshore investment of any province in Canada. That's because we have a strong economy; we're creating the jobs, and we've created an environment in this province where people feel that they have the services that they need, whether it be in education, health care or in the social programs we provide. There's a great future for British Columbia in science and technology, but we can't do it by ourselves.
This country was built upon a cooperative effort, having the federal government support science and technology through transfer through transfer payments. In the last four years and through this latest budget of the Liberal government, we've seen a decrease in that funding. I hope all members in this House stand up and speak loudly to the federal government on behalf of support for science and technology in British Columbia.
[10:30]
CANADA'S PACIFIC COAST FISHERIES: THE CURRENT CRISIS AND ITS FUTURE
A. Warnke: The title of my little talk this morning is "Canada's Pacific Coast Fisheries: The Current Crisis and Its Future." I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about this, because even before this century is out we could very well
[ Page 13802 ]
meet the crisis of the century on the Fraser River. If we do not really address this crisis, the future of our fisheries on the Fraser River may be a forerunner of other crises to occur on other river systems in the Pacific Northwest in the next century.
We already have an indicator of some potential magnitude when we take a look at the example on the east coast. The recent controversy over turbot between Canada and Spain and between Canada and the European Union was not simply some fanciful news item. It was and is a real crisis. Some have said -- and I've actually heard this -- that the federal government was perhaps too extreme in engaging in its recent actions on the Atlantic toward Spanish fishing. What we and the world have to come to terms with is the crisis in fishing throughout the world. Offshore fishing around Canada has attracted fleets from abroad because the crisis has passed the threshold in Europe, Asia and elsewhere in the world.
I would also suggest that many people have not really comprehended that we've had a traumatic experience on the Atlantic coast with the disappearance of the cod. Not that long ago, cod was teeming so plentifully that we mistakenly believed that the cod stocks could perhaps feed a continent and a world.
I don't believe I'm being an alarmist when I say that the Pacific coast fisheries are in big trouble. As I see it, we have a crisis now which we have to address. As far as I'm concerned, in last year's salmon run -- I've observed it by air and by water many times -- I saw both the American and Canadian fleets engaged in capturing every fish they could entering the Fraser River. From that kind of observation I came to the conclusion very quickly that the fish stocks are going to be ravaged. I feared it, and later on they were ravaged.
This was evidenced by the depressing sight of what occurred in the Adams River sockeye spawning grounds. I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, in contrast to many years ago when I visited the area and there was joy among children watching this experience, last year there was no joy expressed. Indeed, people were shocked, because people have memories. They were shocked and genuinely sad at what occurred on the Adams River last year. Few said it, but they felt that perhaps we are seeing the end of something in our nature in British Columbia.
I want to just briefly describe the potential impact of this crisis in British Columbia, as I see it. Our commercial salmon industry is about to disappear unless something is done. Already the revenue is sinking very rapidly. Since I put in for the title of this, I noticed in one of the newspapers that the revenue of a $450 million industry in British Columbia is already sinking. That's still a fairly large, significant income. Actually I was reminded by someone here in Victoria just the other day that the sport fishing industry can be seen as one-half to two times the amount of revenue of the commercial industry, and that's quite correct.
The one statistic that really stands out is that the total salmon fleet's net income of $175 million in 1988 will decline to $25 million in 1996 -- that's quite a drop in revenue. I don't know what many people call it, but there is a generation that thinks of the past and says: "That's a real depression." Therefore we cannot assume that what occurred in the fishing industry is some sort of temporary aberration. What is required is a whole new way of thinking. Otherwise we will be headed toward what I would call a vanishing alternative point; that is, we will not have a choice on the future of our fishing.
The loss of fish stocks cannot be attributed to one single factor. There was an attempt to blame the Sto:lo. The Sto:lo took the heat and perhaps they should have, but it's only one factor. Leaving aside DFO miscalculations, I believe it was a combination of factors: offshore fishing by fish-hungry foreign fleets with bigger and advanced equipment; the inability to find a solution between the United States and Canada under the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty; the pollution by 450 million gallons of waste sewage into the Fraser River in Vancouver and other amounts of sewage from communities along the Fraser River, as well as the ravaging that has taken place elsewhere on the Fraser River; and, of course, the aboriginal communities taking their amount.
All this put together ravages the Fraser River, and what we're seeing is that there will not be a fish. We should believe that the Fraser River is the Ganges of British Columbia. We should believe it, but sometimes we sure abuse it.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
The Liberal opposition has taken some interest in this, and accordingly we've developed a task force on what we called the living rivers fishing strategy. When our members are involved in this....
Well, I see that my time has run out. Perhaps I'll elaborate a little more after I've heard a response.
M. Farnworth: I thank the hon. member for his remarks. I want to address a couple of points that he raised. I won't parrot his comments, but I think he's raised some important points that need to be addressed. He talked very much in a macro sense about fishing in the rivers in this province.
I want to address my remarks at the beginning from a micro sense. My own constituency, which borders the Fraser River, has a very important river that flows through it. It's called the Coquitlam River, which means, in the Salish dialect, river of red salmon. At the turn of the century, that river ran with five species of salmon to sustain the local native population and the growing, burgeoning population of the lower mainland at the time.
The first species, the sockeye, was extirpated from the river just after the turn of the century with the construction of the Coquitlam River dam, which now supplies drinking water for a substantial part of the lower mainland. By the late 1940s the chinook was also gone from the river. In the late fifties, the strip-mining of gravel took place to build highways and apartments -- the postwar construction in the lower mainland. It resulted in the elimination of the pink salmon runs on the Coquitlam River, where by the mid-1960s, with the vegetation stripped from the banks, there were just two struggling runs of salmon left. There was the chum and the coho. They were in numbers of less than a thousand runs a year.
It was about that time that people started to take notice of what was happening. Work started to be done by local community groups to try and bring back the river to something of its former glory. Today there is awareness in schools, in the council and in the community of the importance of the salmon and of how vital it is in the Coquitlam River. Today, in the fall,
[ Page 13803 ]
community groups patrol the banks so that people don't -- for sport -- catch the fish, club them and leave them, as they used to do. People are aware of the importance of the resource to the community.
The provincial government has recognized that attitudes have changed. We've said to B.C. Hydro: "No longer is the generation of power your sole responsibility, but you must take into account environmental and community factors." One of the proudest moments of the past four years was when I and my colleague for Coquitlam-Maillardville were able to stand at the river and announce a stream flow agreement which resulted in Hydro letting out extra water over the dam in the summer months when the river levels were low and water temperatures were extremely high. They had placed severe limitations on the ability of fish to get up the river and in fact to survive. In the last two years, you can go on the Coquitlam River in August and it's no longer just a dry trickle. It's a river -- a river that supports life and the fish stocks.
All across this province in the great salmon rivers.... It's not just the main river, the Fraser; it's those thousands of tributaries, the small rivers, streams and creeks, that hold the resource. Each one adds on to the other. And they build until we get that massive tributary, the Fraser, which carries them like a highway. That's the local, in-province side of the fishery.
There's a great deal this government is doing. But the hon. member is correct when he says that once those fish are out there in the ocean it's a whole different world, because this province doesn't have jurisdiction out there. This province doesn't have a navy to go out and stop the pirates who catch the fish illegally while they're still juvenile, who overfish and are decimating the runs the way the cod stocks were being decimated on the east coast. This province wants to see that stopped.
I hope the federal government over the next few years has the guts to stick up for this province and this province's fish stocks in negotiations with the Americans, Taiwan and Korea, to ensure that our interests are represented in the way they have been attempting in the last few months to stand up for the fishery on the east coast. They have to realize that there are two coasts, there are two fisheries in this country, and British Columbia's is every bit as important as that of the east coast.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the member for Port Coquitlam in complementing my remarks. The Fraser River is made up of many tributaries, and he described basically what roles there are for the many tributary rivers.
If not addressed, as far as I'm concerned the vanishing point will mean that there will be no fish if no action is taken. Some kind of action has to be taken now. I would agree with the member when he says that what has to occur is some sort of an awareness. If there is a note of optimism, it is probably in a generation that is becoming more aware, through education and elsewhere, of what it means. We of course hope that, more than that, we can bring about a greater awareness among the adult population as well.
I believe that there will be no fish if no action is taken. If action is taken we may still address this problem. But it has to be now. It could be argued that what occurred last year already forces us down the road, in three or four years, to something like a moratorium. Moratorium should be a word that's absolutely scary in this province. If there is a moratorium, there is no fishing for commercial interests, sport interests -- no one -- not even the aboriginals, because aboriginal fishing must be subject to conservation and restoration. I think the case can be made right now that we must do something along this line. Otherwise, what we will see is something akin to the east coast.
I am somewhat encouraged by the actions taken by the federal government, especially on the east coast; but if everyone reflects on it, an attitude toward the west coast as well.... I understand what the hon. member said about the perception that there are two coasts, and indeed there are two different kinds of fishing. For too long the Pacific coast has been ignored by Ottawa, but I like what I see coming out of Ottawa. It is a whole new kind of thinking towards the Pacific coast. That even provides us with an incentive to start rethinking our whole river system -- to start rethinking what the fishing industry on the Pacific coast is all about. That is so critical now and for the rest of this century. Otherwise, we will undermine the fishing industry in the next century.
[10:45]
HEALTH CARE DELIVERY LEADERS
B. Simpson: St. Paul's Hospital and Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre were recently named two of the best advanced health facilities in North America. In Best Hospitals in America, American authors John Wright and Linda Sunshine selected the two Vancouver hospitals as among the best hospitals on the continent. They selected the top-rated facilities based entirely upon the needs and concerns of patients.
The authors looked for hospitals with high-powered staff, senior physicians who have national reputations in their fields, excellent nursing staff whose quality is maintained through rigorous requirements for acceptance, and a concern for working conditions. The Vancouver Hospital's spinal cord unit, under the directorship of Dr. Peter Wing, is recognized as a leader in trauma care. The hospital has an outstanding reputation in orthopedics, transplantation and ophthalmology. St. Paul's is heralded for its work in HIV, AIDS, comprehensive heart care, digestive nutritional disorders and diseases of the kidney. Both hospitals are leading teaching facilities. St. Paul's president and chief executive officer, Ron Mulchey, gave credit to the staff, physicians and researchers. He stated that it is the skill, dedication and determination of individual men and women that shape an organization's reputation.
Among those outstanding physicians is Dr. Sam Lichtenstein. Dr. Lichtenstein is the program medical director of the Provincial Heart Centre and the director of the division of CVT, the cardiovascular thoracic unit. Dr. Lichtenstein and his team of dedicated staff at St. Paul's are working cooperatively with such distinguished doctors as Dr. Ian Penn, director of interventional cardiology, and his staff at the Vancouver Hospital. These teams at St. Paul's and Vancouver Hospital are working together with their respective administrations to give the citizens of the province the best possible health care for heart disease.
Cooperation is the key word here. At one time, hospitals competed for limited resources. Now they have a common mission, and that is to preserve our health care system. They recognize that only through cooperation will our health care
[ Page 13804 ]
system work. These two hospitals have focused on patient care, teaching and research. The hospitals have brought together the various stakeholders, and they are working cooperatively to use our resources more efficiently. As a consequence, their efforts have been recognized worldwide, and they're among the best hospitals in North America. I know that each and every British Columbian applauds the work that these two hospitals are doing.
Politicians can learn a lesson from what is taking place at the Vancouver Hospital and St. Paul's. Politicians from all political parties and, indeed, all British Columbians must work together to save our health care system. This is not political rhetoric; our health care system is under attack. The head of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Leo-Paul Landry, emphasized this point in a recent edition of MacLean's magazine when, commenting on the federal health care budget cuts, he stated: "Medicare, as we've known it, may be a thing of the past."
Within the next few years, federal moneys for health care will end. British Columbians will have three choices if they want to maintain the current standard of health care: increase taxes, increase debt or manage available funds more efficiently. It is the efficient management of available funds that this government is committed to. We are committed to modern health care reform, which means that we must make changes. Decisions must be made as close to the community level as possible. Local people must be allowed to shape the local system of health care delivery. That is what reorganization is all about. That is also what regionalization is all about.
Our government has followed the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, and this process is now well underway. Over the past three years, the government has invested close to $500 million to build or expand hospitals, clinics and community-based health care facilities. The most recent budget provides $300 million in capital investments. Operating expenditures for our health care system will be increased by 4 percent this year to a total of $6.46 billion. In March of this year the Minister of Health announced that $18.5 million in additional funding would be put into the health care system to reduce waiting lists for surgery, magnetic resonance imaging and cardiac and dialysis services. This brings the total expenditure on reducing waiting lists to $90 million over the last three years.
The effect of the actions taken by the Ministry of Health has been a reduction in waiting lists for cardiac surgery to the levels of the mid-eighties. This is a 50 percent reduction since 1991. Similar reductions in waiting lists have been achieved for joint-replacement surgery and MRI services.
Over the last three years, $70 million has been committed to building two new cancer treatment centres in Surrey and Kelowna and to upgrading existing services in Victoria and Vancouver. This will increase the number of British Columbians who will be able to receive time in cancer treatment by 53 percent. Our hospitals, like all facets of our health care system, are under increasing pressure to maintain and expand their levels of services while facing the realities of limited financial resources. St. Paul's Hospital and Vancouver Hospital and other hospitals throughout B.C. are proving that it is possible to give optimum care with the limited resources available.
Health care last year cost each B.C. resident $212 per hour, or $5,000 per day. Nationally, Canadians spent $72 billion on health care in 1993 -- 10 percent of the gross domestic product. Federal transfer payments paid one-fifth of those costs, the provinces paid almost a half, and Canadians and private insurance paid most of the remainder. For British Columbians, health care is a right of citizenship. It is one of the defining principles of being a British Columbian and a Canadian.
The initiatives announced by our government target cost savings in administration and operating costs through improved coordination and planning between the hospitals and community health care agencies. The Closer to Home fund will see an additional $42 million provided....
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I hate to interrupt you, but your time has been exhausted. I'm sure you'll find a moment to continue your comments later.
B. Simpson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Indeed, we have much more to add.
J. Dalton: I'm pleased to respond to the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. I thought by the title that perhaps, as I think we've experienced far too often in our Friday morning statements this session, politics might creep into the discussion. Even though there was mention made, appropriately, of medicare and the implications of federal initiatives as well as the ministry's initiatives in this province, the member, happily.... Perhaps I shouldn't refer to this, because this may precipitate some response that will not necessarily be appropriate.
I was certainly interested to hear the member's comments about the two major hospitals in Vancouver that have been recognized. I might say, on a personal note, that one of the two hospitals caught my attention, because I was born in St. Paul's Hospital. It has always been a excellent hospital, and it has maintained that reputation. I think it would also be in order for me to add, as an MLA from the North Shore, that there are many other excellent hospitals in the province, and I will just comment that Lion's Gate Hospital certainly fits into that category.
The member mentioned the very important aspect of cooperation between hospitals. There's no question that we have to improve health care, and we have to address the budgetary implications of escalating health costs. Given that hospitals are still the most important and the most cost-consuming aspect of health delivery, we will all be better served by any improvement that can be made between hospitals so they're not duplicating things but are working in a more cooperative manner, as the member said. We will be better served from the health delivery point of view, and we will be better served as taxpayers.
The member touched upon the overall problems that health care delivery in this country is facing. Of course, this is not unique to British Columbia. It is true that our federal government is addressing the ever-escalating costs of health care; any government must do that. We cannot live in isolation and think: "That's fine; let another government worry about that, and we will carry on in a different mode." That isn't the case. Health care, I would remind all members, was brought in by a federal Liberal government, and I can assure this House that medicare will be protected. I think, as well, that in
[ Page 13805 ]
this day and age -- as every minister is reminding us in the estimates, and let us not forget -- the pressure on the taxpayer is ever increasing.
The hon. member suggested that, as far as British Columbia is concerned, addressing these budgetary crunches that we are all going through, we may have to either increase taxes or run up further debt. Heaven forbid that we would incur even more debt. As we know from the current budget, the British Columbia debt is already increasing almost another $1 billion, and we need not get into further economic crunches because of that problem.
I think the appropriate comment that the member made was about efficiency in management. That certainly is very critical to how we approach hopefully improving the implementation of health care. The Seaton royal commission certainly addressed many important issues; it is significant to recognize that the Closer to Home concept is, of course, being utilized.
I had occasion to attend some of the planning sessions for the North Shore regional health board. There are many good people serving on that health board now, but many other good people put in long hours at meetings and in committee work to put the health board together. The one complaint -- if that's the way to express it -- I hear from members of the North Shore health board is that their volunteer efforts aren't necessarily being properly recognized. There is an important aspect as to.... At least some of their day-to-day expenses should be addressed. So that's another cost factor I think we are going to have to address.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, your time is up. Thank you very much. I call again on the hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview.
[11:00]
B. Simpson: I appreciate the remarks my colleague has made, but I want to make one thing perfectly clear: we do not consider increasing taxes or increasing the debt as feasible options when attempting to save our health care system. That is simply not an option for us. Efficient management is the route that we are going to go.
I just want to say that regardless of what we do, we cannot do this without volunteers. Volunteers are recognized as essential in protecting our health care system. This government recognizes the vital role that volunteers play in health care and in the development of new programs. Throughout the province, hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers are stepping forward to join the regional and community health boards. Volunteers by the thousands are assisting such organizations as the British Columbia Cancer Society.
Prior to my entry into political life, I served as chair of the Canadian Cancer Society Vancouver campaign. I saw for myself the dedication of the hundreds of volunteers who were determined to ensure that our health care system works. Many of those volunteers came from ethnic communities such as the Jewish community, the Isma'ili community, the Chinese community, the Indo-Canadian community, the Filipino community, the Korean community and the Hispanic community. Many of those people came from countries that did not have a health care system such as we have and enjoy in Canada, and we are determined, and they are determined, to ensure that our health care system survives. Yes, volunteers are the defenders of the values of tolerance and compassion in our health care system.
In conclusion, we in the Legislature commend these two great hospitals in our province -- Vancouver Hospital and St. Paul's Hospital -- for being in the forefront of providing the highest-quality care with compassion, determination and a commitment to the health care system that we, the New Democratic Party government, are committed to ensuring the survival of.
INSURANCE
R. Chisholm: The subject I am talking about this morning is insurance, and just what insurance is in this province. It is very timely. In the Times Colonist this morning the Finance minister was quoted on earthquake insurance: "The government would certainly be required to cover a significant portion of the loss for those who are not insured." Further on in that editorial, the paper itself made a statement: "Government will be expected to provide emergency aid, and to ensure that the province's infrastructure -- roads, power, medical facilities -- is restored as expeditiously as possible. Public responsibility ends there." I think it is time in this province to wake up and smell the coffee. How are we going to facilitate this from Alberta? That's the bottom line: from Alberta.
Schedule B, section 7 of the Constitution Act, 1982, says: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person." That makes it an obligation of the federal government to ensure that they can support us in times of emergency in this province. Part XI of the National Defence Act says that the military will be the organization to facilitate that. The federal government, in its move, has decided that they are going to close CFB Chilliwack. This is not a Chilliwack issue; this is a provincial issue. It is the responsibility of the federal government to the provincial body. With the way the federal government is about to do this, they will not be able to ensure that their responsibilities are met.
Let's just take a look at a bit of the history and background of what we're talking about. In Chilliwack there are 1,280 military personnel and their dependents, and there are 747 accompanying civilian jobs. These jobs and this base will disappear. This military base is very, very appropriate for British Columbia. After all, we live on a fault line; we are living with the constant threat of earthquakes. A recent study states that within the next 30 years we have a 48 percent chance of having an earthquake of 7.0 or higher in this area we live in. The organization that did the study has made the statement publicly that we are under the same threat as Los Angeles and San Francisco at this time.
This base houses a particular organization; they are called engineers. These people are specialized in building bridges, using heavy equipment and doing the types of things that we expect from construction companies and the like. It is very appropriate that they were put in this area of the country in the first place, because we have problems in this province: the threat of earthquakes, floods and forest fires. If you take a look, we also have other problems we've created ourselves, such as train derailments. All you have to think about in that area is Mississagua six years ago; they had to move 200,000 people out of Toronto, and the military was forced to do it. We just had a Via Rail train derailment a couple of days ago, and
[ Page 13806 ]
four weeks ago we had a B.C. Rail derailment. There weren't any toxic materials on board, but we have them going up and down the Fraser Valley daily.
We have a lot of prisons in the Fraser Valley, and we've had riots in the prisons. Who responded to them? CFB Chilliwack. When Matsqui Institution first opened, they had a riot, and CFB Chilliwack responded. They've had riots since. When you take a look at what this base does for this province, it's immeasurable. This base happens to be a full partner with every municipality in this province with its emergency measures organization. What are these municipalities going to do once they're gone? The province does not have the capability to replace them.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
We're the only province going through treaties at this time, and we've had railway lines and roads blocked. What happens when this erupts and becomes somewhat like an Oka? What happens if you have an innocuous 1,200 troops sitting at a base in Chilliwack, and you have to fly in 1,000 armed troops? You've just escalated a very small problem into a major incident. These are just a few of the things the federal government has not thought about, and I think it's time we did.
Let's take a look at what this facility brings to British Columbia. It brings $149 million a year to the Chilliwack region. Those are the government statistics, and that's how much we're going to lose. Take a look across Canada at the proportion of military bases in various areas in the country. Take a look at Halifax, Fredericton and Charlottetown. They have the biggest military base in the British Commonwealth supporting that area, all within a couple of hours of each of those municipalities. If you go to Quebec, you have Valcartier and Montreal right within the boundaries or just outside. If you go to Toronto, you have Borden, Trenton, Meaford and Rockcliffe all within hours of each other. If you go to Winnipeg, you have a battalion of infantry sitting in Winnipeg, and you have the artillery sitting in Shilo. If you go to Saskatchewan, you have Moose Jaw and various bases there. If you go to Alberta, there are four bases there alone, and that's not even counting the one in Calgary that they're going to strike. You have Suffield, Wainwright, Cold Lake and Edmonton.
Somehow or other, we've missed the boat. If you take a look at the per capita, and at what we're entitled to for our moneys, we're already $700 million short. The closure of this base is going to make that even greater. It will bring it up to a difference of about $850 million between....
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, member. I must advise you that you are over your time.
R. Chisholm: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will continue my remarks later.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize now the Minister of Government Services.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to make a very special introduction....
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, minister. I must request leave.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: May I ask for leave to make a special introduction.
Leave granted.
Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'd like to draw members' attention to the presence in the gallery this morning of a man who should be well known to all of us. His name is Roland Henault, but it would not surprise me if many of you did not recognize him by that name. Here in the precinct, he's better known as Blackie, and I understand he is in the gallery.
Blackie has been with us in one capacity or another since 1971. He started out in security, but he found his niche in the heart of the parliament buildings when his unique talents surfaced and were suitably recognized. I don't know of any office move that could have taken place in the last decade without Blackie's able help and support. As members will appreciate, in the sometimes volatile and expressive political climate in British Columbia, Blackie has engineered a number of moves within this building. Staff members have come to rely on Blackie's knowledge and ingenuity in solving a myriad of our problems, from the ridiculous to the sublime, and a call to Blackie usually saves the day.
I mention Blackie today because he leaves this afternoon to begin his retirement and his new life. He will be sorely missed here, but I understand that there are a number of B.C. salmon out there who will be taking up most of his time from now on. Let's wish him well.
T. Perry: I wish to begin by acknowledging the member for Chilliwack and particularly his gestures to the House in the last number of years as a former peacekeeper himself. As a soldier serving in peacekeeping forces in Cyprus and elsewhere, he has reminded us of our debt to Canada's peacekeepers abroad. He has brought us United Nations peacekeeping force flags, reminded us of the members of that force serving at CFB Chilliwack and elsewhere in the country and has encouraged us to think about them. I've run out of flags. If he has some more, I'll wear them again with pleasure, because he has opened a window on a side of British Columbia life that too many of us ignore and are not sufficiently aware of.
Well, you know, listening to him and thinking of where he comes from I couldn't help but remember the 1948 flood. I wasn't alive then. Perhaps you were, hon. Speaker; perhaps you were even born to us like Moses in that flood. But in that flood -- a disastrous flood of the Fraser River, the record flood in recorded history -- much of the Fraser Valley was under many feet of water. In Chilliwack, Abbotsford and Matsqui-Sumas the damage was reckoned in the millions of dollars, and there were devastating consequences for cattle and other domestic animals, as well as for people. We had very limited abilities to respond to those, and the event could happen again; a record flood could occur on the Fraser River. For very good reasons we have not built dams on the Fraser River, and we could see that again.
We do expect that at some time, probably within the lifetime of members of this assembly -- perhaps not ours but at least the junior member for Port Coquitlam -- there may be a record earthquake of a magnitude unknown in written
[ Page 13807 ]
history in B.C. We will need help then. The recent experience in Oklahoma City and the experience of disasters elsewhere in North America and around the world teach us that our civilian capabilities to respond are often limited.
Well, I think we must pay tribute to the member for Chilliwack, who has tried to bring those concerns to the attention of the federal government, which often makes decisions in a void, far away in Ottawa, with no experience of what the geography is like -- like the decisions they've made over lighthouses, which the member for North Coast and Sen. Pat Carney have fought so vigorously. Bureaucrats in Ottawa make these decisions with limited understanding of the real geography and the social context that they are in. The member for Chilliwack has brought these issues to our attention, and I'm very pleased to see that the hon. Premier has responded in a recent letter to the member, pointing out his concern that there may be no marshalling site in the event of an emergency, because of a move of all such activities to Calgary. The Premier has asked:
"I would ask that you" -- the member -- "meet with provincial officials to discuss this matter, including the use of CFB Chilliwack. Your discussions should include the impact of any base closure on the effective participation of Fraser Valley emergency services and groups in our province's preparedness for disasters."
I quote further from the Premier's letter of April 27:
"I want to emphasize that the federal government's announced closure of CFB Chilliwack could have been avoided. The B.C. government provided budget recommendations to the federal government that would protect such essential public services...."
Instead, the federal government chose to retain corporate tax breaks which the Premier had called on them to cut.
[11:15]
I'm sure the hon. member is going to meet with the provincial officials, as suggested by the Premier. What has his former leader done about it? The Libcred leader, who is out in that very area trying to stir up trouble right now, has recently toured the Chilliwack base. According to the Chilliwack Times of last Tuesday, he didn't have an opinion; he had no opinion at all. The Libcred leader, after months and months of this member as a member of that caucus -- formerly -- trying to get his attention, and the Libcred leader has no position. Instead, what was he doing? At the same time, he was gallivanting around in downtown Vancouver before 2,800 faithful, as Vaughn Palmer describes them, promising them he'd cut corporate taxes by $1.1 billion. This is going to worsen the debt situation and the fiscal crisis of the country by giving handouts to his friends, 2,800 of whom were able to pay, to plop right on down to the trough and pay $175....
Deputy Speaker: Mr. Member, I'm afraid your time has expired. I now call upon the member for Chilliwack to conclude his remarks.
R. Chisholm: I thank the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for his remarks and his support. This issue is beyond politics; this issue is a public safety issue. It's an issue that has to be addressed. If we take a look at the potential disaster here, we have a major problem. And with this move, if you take a look at what the federal government is saying -- that it's going to save money -- I'd like to know how they're going to save the money, considering they're going transfer 1,298 people across the country. They're going to close down CFB Chilliwack, with a total cost of $500 million, and they're going to have to rebuild infrastructure in Gagetown, New Brunswick, and in Edmonton, Alberta; that's just a bit of it. Meanwhile, they'll probably do the same as they did with Royal Roads -- sell it for $1 and give the provincial government $25 million to take it. These are all taxpayers' dollars, and I don't think they're being very wisely used. In the last five years they've invested 40 million more new dollars in CFB Chilliwack. One building, a $13 million building, is going to be opened in June of this year; a brand-new $10 million building was opened last year. None of this makes any sense.
I think it's time that the federal government looked into the situation. They owe us a debt in aid of civil authority and in aid of civil power. This is not happening, and it cannot be facilitated out of Alberta. As we found out in Japan, when they had their major earthquake.... And this is a nation that was prepared. How many lives were lost? How long did it take them to respond? Three days. They've now estimated that if they had responded within the day -- within the hour -- they would have saved 200 lives, and decreasing down from there. But it didn't happen. And that community was not on a delta. If we have an earthquake, the airports are going to disappear. It's going to turn into a quagmire. Our infrastructure and our roads will be blocked by avalanches. How are they going to get the bridging here? This is the only unit that can put a bridge across the Fraser River in two or three days. A civilian company cannot do this. They do not have the equipment; they do not have the expertise. We're keeping CFB Moose Jaw for the icons of the air force, the Snowbirds. All it does is support the Snowbirds. Why don't they move them to Cold Lake? Instead, they'll close down CFB Chilliwack and put two million people in jeopardy. This does not make any sense. I've already said how much of a difference there is between us and other areas of the province.
My former leader did go to the base, I did talk to my former leader for three or four months in advance, and I did brief the caucus on this issue. And absolutely nothing happened.
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, member. I must advise you that your time has indeed expired for a statement.
That concludes private members' statements.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I am pleased to present the 1995-96 estimates for the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, a ministry that's part of the first B.C. government working to bring about certainty for all British Columbians -- first nations and non-first nations -- through, among other things, fair, affordable and lasting treaties with first nations. I'm proud to be part of a ministry that is dedicated to an open
[ Page 13808 ]
treaty process that ensures that the interests and concerns of all British Columbians are considered throughout negotiations, including discussions of pre-treaty agreements.
I am pleased to be able to tell you today that this process is working. The process is being managed, and the interests of British Columbians are being represented. It is working because of our commitment to an open process whereby the general public, third parties and local governments have meaningful input into treaty negotiations between first nations and provincial and federal governments.
Today I will update you on progress to date in achieving lasting agreements with first nations. But before I talk about our commitment to the process, I would like to give you an update on negotiations. Treaty talks with the Sechelt have entered the agreement-in-principle stage. The first negotiation session will be May 2 and 3. This is very significant progress. The Sechelt openness protocol sets a high standard for openness in our province. You'll be able to watch the proceedings on cable television the same way you watch these proceedings today. I think that some members might admit to indulging in the practice of channel-surfing from time to time, and as they surf from hockey game to ball game to whatever they're watching, they will also see on cable television open sessions of treaty negotiations taking place -- now possibly up to six different treaties throughout the province. While people will find it boring -- something like watching paint dry -- after the novelty wears off I think they will at least be reassured that they have the right to be informed and to be there and to know what is taking place at that table. I recognize today the significant role our Premier has taken in ensuring that this is the most open treaty-making process in the modern history of treaty negotiations in Canada.
As well as the Sechelt, we have made progress on many other fronts. We have initial framework agreements with the Gitksan, Wet'suwet'en and. . . . Nuu-chah-nulth. . . . With the Nisga'a, I can tell you that the province is committed to reaching an agreement, but not at any cost. An agreement must be fair and affordable; nothing less will be acceptable to the people of British Columbia.
I would now like to talk about why my government is committed to this process. Unlike the rest of Canada south of the 60th parallel, very few treaties were signed in B.C. with first nations as a way of securing land for settlement. This has left the question of aboriginal rights on lands and resources unresolved. But we have now finally begun the long-overdue process of building new and far more productive relationships with first nations.
Negotiations will benefit all British Columbians. We cannot afford to leave a legacy of confusion and unresolved business to our children and to their children. It is a very complex issue, and it's our responsibility in this day and generation to resolve it. We cannot leave this uncertainty for future generations. We must achieve more productive relationships with first nations: relationships based on cooperation and consultation; relationships that will enable aboriginal people to achieve greater self-sufficiency and self-determination; relationships that will allow aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians to move beyond conflict and confrontation, and work toward our common goals.
In its ruling in the case of Delgamuukw v. the Queen in 1991, the Supreme Court of British found that the province had a legal fiduciary obligation to ensure aboriginal access to unoccupied Crown land for traditional sustenance. In response, the province reaffirmed its commitment to negotiate fair treaty settlements and to balance aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests through cooperative initiatives.
In June 1993 the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that aboriginal rights have not been extinguished in British Columbia. The court held that the province must work with aboriginal people to identify and, where necessary, take measures to avoid infringement of existing aboriginal rights. The decision in Delgamuukw, together with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Regina v. Sparrow and a number of other decisions of both the Supreme Court of Canada and the B.C. Court of Appeal, constitute a growing body of legal opinion which reaffirms and clarifies existing aboriginal rights and urges governments to resolve outstanding issues through negotiation.
Three years ago our government became the first B.C. government to recognize aboriginal rights. We made a commitment then to negotiate treaties with first nations that would define those rights. The province will negotiate lands and resources on the following basis. The courts have held that underlying title to all land in B.C. rests with the Crown. The existence of aboriginal rights does not call into question the Crown's title; let us be very clear about that. The province goes into these negotiations with it very firmly recognized that the province holds underlying title to Crown land.
However, aboriginal rights do exist. In 1993 the B.C. Court of Appeal found in Delgamuukw that there were "unextinguished, non-exclusive aboriginal rights other than a right of ownership." The justices recommended that the scope and content of those rights would be best defined through negotiation rather than litigation. Treaty negotiations will define aboriginal rights to land and resources in a manner that fits contemporary realities of economics, law and systems of property rights in B.C.
We have made much progress in the last year not only by working with first nations and the federal government but by involving the general public, third parties and local governments directly in negotiations. In September 1994 the Premier outlined our government's principles for openness in land claims negotiations and, as I said, thus achieved the most open treaty-making process in Canada. The province's approach to openness is intended to ensure that the interests and concerns of all British Columbians are considered throughout the negotiations, including discussions of pre-treaty agreements.
[11:30]
The following principles will guide provincial negotiating teams. Openness must be the starting point for treaty negotiations, with any closed negotiations the exception and not the rule. Treaties must represent the interests of local governments, the general public and third parties who must have meaningful input into the negotiation process. Provincewide mandates must reflect the interests of all British Columbians and will be made public. British Columbians must have access to information, and the province will provide regular reports on the status of negotiations. All agreements in principle will be subjected to public review, and all final agreements will be sent to the Legislature for debate and ratification.
To ensure that the rights of all British Columbians are secured, our government has adopted several principles to
[ Page 13809 ]
guide provincial negotiation teams. These are: private property will not be on the table; access to land and resources for hunting, fishing and recreational use will be maintained; the Canadian constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be applied to all citizens of British Columbia; agreements must be affordable to B.C. taxpayers; the federal government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties must be maintained; fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests will be assured; jurisdictional certainty between first nations and municipalities must be clearly spelled out; and provincewide standards of resource management and environmental protection will apply.
A study has indicated that uncertainty about our land and resources has already cost B.C. more than $1 billion in lost investment. Over time, the benefits of treaty negotiations and settlements will exceed the costs. Settlement costs will be offset to a large extent by savings from the improved social and economic conditions for aboriginal peoples. Fair, affordable and lasting treaties with first nations will help lead all of British Columbia to greater economic certainty, through the growth of healthy, self-sufficient aboriginal communities, the creation of an economic climate that will help generate jobs and encourage investment, and the resolution of longstanding and divisive land use and resource management conflicts. In short, treaties are good for business.
In 1994-95, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs received a significant percentage increase in funding to guarantee that we would be able to undertake the treaty negotiation process. We established five regional negotiating teams to complement the existing Nisga'a team and the provincial team. We added key staff to support treaty negotiations in the development of treaty mandates, treaty policy, communications and consultations. We funded tripartite costs, such as negotiating costs for first nations and funds for the B.C. Treaty Commission.
In the 1995-96 budget, there is an increase in funding. To be precise, the ministry's estimate for 1994-95 was $32.207 million, while the ministry's total estimated budget for 1995-96 is $33.709 million. This is a 4.7 percent increase over the last fiscal year.
I would like to tell you about what this money will help us achieve. This budget increase guarantees that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs can continue to represent British Columbia in the treaty negotiation process, a process that affects every region in this province. The increased funding will be used primarily for full-year funding for new staff hired during 1994-95, increased spending on communications and public consultation necessary to implement the openness policy on treaty negotiations, and increased Treaty Commission operating and tripartite costs.
It means that we'll be able to continue with our strategies to make substantial progress on treaty negotiations, using an effective, efficient and inclusive process and improved access for aboriginal peoples to government services. We'll proceed with negotiations in a managed and orderly way that meets the needs of all British Columbians -- fair, affordable and lasting. As a result, we will be able to set right past injustices, balance the interests of all the parties and people involved, and develop fair and affordable solutions that will stand the test of time. We'll strengthen local and regional economies and insure renewed investments in our province.
The signing of the federal-provincial agreement for sharing treaty costs was a historic, crucial step in setting the stage for negotiation of modern-day treaties. What the province spends on treaty negotiations represents only a portion of the overall costs of negotiating treaties in British Columbia. Under our landmark cost-sharing agreement, the federal government will pay the majority of cash compensation.
If we are going to succeed in fostering a new, more positive relationship between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples, it is crucial that all British Columbians feel included in this process of change. Therefore a significant portion of our budget is being devoted to public education and public involvement. We are committed to making sure that all British Columbians receive the information they need to fully understand the treaty negotiation process and that they are offered ample opportunities to make their concerns about the process known before and during treaty negotiations. It is absolutely necessary that all parties respect those British Columbians who have legitimate concerns that they wish to have answered.
In some cases, these concerns amount to fear, and it is our responsibility -- the responsibility of first nations, Canada and British Columbia -- to have the deepest respect for the fears that may reside in the hearts and minds of some British Columbians. We must take the time that is necessary to ensure that they have all the information that helps to address this issue. Hopefully they will move from fear to concern to being able to participate in the process; hopefully they will become confident that the process represents their interests, as well.
There are four consultation groups that the province and the provincial negotiating team will rely on for information and advice as we progress in treaty negotiations. These are the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the regional local government treaty advisory committee, the regional advisory committee and the regional caucus of provincial ministry and Crown corporation representatives. The 32-member Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, or TNAC, includes third-party representatives who may be directly affected by treaty settlements. Committee members come from business, labour, environmental, recreational, and fish and wildlife groups, as well as municipal governments. These groups, such as the B.C. Federation of Labour, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the Council of Forest Industries, the Fisheries Council of B.C., etc., have hundreds, if not thousands, of members.
I want to point out that we have taken steps to ensure that openness has been applied to the TNAC meetings. The last main-table session was opened up to the media. Each TNAC member also sits on one of five subcommittees: energy; petroleum resources and mines; fisheries, lands and forests; governance; and, finally, wildlife. These subcommittees meet monthly with members of the provincial and federal governments to exchange information and ideas; they are a vital resource for the identification of the provincewide interests of third parties.
The Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee has been operational for over two years and has developed broad statements of interests. In addition to the TNAC providing advice on a provincewide basis, the ministry has increased funding to provide additional regional consultation and public involvement as we move toward specific negotiations.
I want to make it very clear, as we refer to committees such as the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, the regional advisory committees and the treaty advisory commit-
[ Page 13810 ]
tees which deal with municipal interests, that this is very much a process that calls on the resources, the wisdom, the time and the energy of a great many British Columbians. Their participation is fundamental to ensuring the success of the treaty-making process. I want to say a personal word of appreciation to all those who work within these processes to ensure that we hammer out the best possible treaties that will ultimately ensure a better future for our province.
An agreement between the province of British Columbia and the Union of B.C. Municipalities was signed last September guaranteeing local government and regional district participation in negotiations through the regional local government treaty advisory committees. Included in this agreement is the establishment of a local government consultation process in each treaty area, local government treaty advisory committees and a process to enable local government representatives to advise provincial negotiators on local government issues. Five committees have been established through the protocol so far: in Port Alberni, Terrace, Smithers, Sechelt and the lower mainland.
The regional advisory committee -- sometimes referred to as RAC -- includes local government representatives as well as representatives from all social and economic sectors of the economy in the region where negotiations are occurring. For example, in the Nuu-chah-nulth negotiations on the west coast of Vancouver Island, the RAC includes representatives from small business; aquaculture; commercial fisheries; education; health; community service; environment; forest companies; forest contractors, operators and independents; labour; local government; outdoor recreation; sports fishing; and trapping. Other RACs have been established in Terrace, Smithers, Sechelt and the lower mainland. We are looking forward to regional advisory committees and treaty advisory committees in the south Vancouver Island, Lillooet, Pemberton and Prince George areas.
The provincial negotiating team also has a regional caucus of provincial ministry and Crown corporation representatives that advises the negotiators on a monthly basis. This group is important from a local government perspective, because each treaty advisory committee will have an ability to send a representative to the provincial regional caucus. Our provincewide mandates will be made public. These mandates, which set out the provincial approach, will reflect the interests of all British Columbians.
With regard to that, I want to say that we remember -- with a great deal of satisfaction, I think -- the good feeling that was very much in evidence at the time of the announcement of the setting up of the Treaty Commission; Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Summit had agreed to embark on this historic process. You might say that there was a feeling of euphoria at the time about the fact that we were now going to be able to get on with achieving an agreement that would enable a certainty in a way that had never been accomplished in the modern history of Canada. Truly, that was a euphoric moment.
But the fact is that I think we have to make it very, very clear that in some ways negotiations can be a pretty hard-nosed business at times and that the people who are involved in negotiating on behalf of the three parties go in there with very strongly held positions because they represent the interests that are their responsibility. Therefore, hon. Chair, it is not always going to be sweetness and light. There are going to be times -- not too often, hopefully -- when the gloves come off. I think we have to recognize that at times there will be things said and that there will be a need, from time to time, to find ways to keep the entire process on track, given that each of the negotiating parties has a very strongly held view based on those whom they represent.
[11:45]
The provincial team represents all the interests of all the people of British Columbia; that is our responsiblity. The success of the treaties will depend on the effectiveness and strength of the various treaty negotiation teams at the table.
Treaties take time. Developing a framework for negotiation is the first step, followed by negotiating an agreement in principle and then drawing up the final treaty and implementing it. We are committed to ensuring that first nations are involved now in developing interim measures that respond to their interests. The ministry budget for 1995-96 will help fund a variety of interim measures, including interim measures agreements. The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is taking a leadership role in managing issues related to interim measures. To address public concerns, we are taking a corporate approach which includes compiling all existing policies pertaining to interim measures into a comprehensive document, developing a template and negotiation guidelines, providing guidance in regard to openness, and maintaining lists of existing and in-progress interim measures. We are providing operational guidance to line ministries in regard to stakeholder consultation and the standardization of interim measures agreements. Ministries are responsible for making sure that all interests are represented and respected, through open and accessible negotiations. If interim measures agreements are going to be negotiated, the ministry involved will notify local governments and other interested parties. The ministry will also make sure that all interest groups are kept up to date on the negotiation process and have plenty of opportunity to make their views known before a final agreement is signed.
The primary objective of interim measures is to establish manageable consultation protocols in order to avoid unlawful infringement of aboriginal rights. Interim measures do not give first nations or bands a veto over government resource use or economic development decisions. These agreements have time limits and will not predetermine the outcome of treaty negotiations. They are being worked out so that land and resources can be used now without having to wait until a conclusion of a treaty negotiation.
As you can see, once again we have an ambitious program lined up for 1995-96. The ministry will continue to make substantial progress on treaty negotiations, using an effective, efficient and inclusive process with meaningful input from local governments, the general public and third parties. Negotiations will proceed in a managed and orderly way that meets the needs of all British Columbians.
Treaties will be fair, affordable and lasting. The relationships we want to develop with first nations will take time and hard work. The kinds of relationships we are working on to build can only be achieved through good communication, consultation and negotiation. They can only be achieved by encouraging cooperation and developing mutual trust and respect. If there is no consultation, there are no treaties -- period.
I look forward to the challenges we will face over the next year. Together we have an opportunity to bring about funda-
[ Page 13811 ]
mental change with aboriginal peoples in this province and an opportunity to create a stronger, fairer and more prosperous province for all British Columbians.
That is the conclusion of my opening remarks, and I look forward, with appreciation, to engaging in what I believe will be an informative and lively debate with the Aboriginal Affairs critic for the official opposition and with other parties in the Legislature.
A. Warnke: Before I go into my remarks, I would ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: Visiting the House today are 15 enthusiastic grade 11 social studies students from St. George's School in Vancouver. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. McCracken, and a staff member, Mr. Duran. I would ask the House to please make these people most welcome.
Some of the response I want to give this morning is twofold, essentially reflecting on the nature of some of the issues brought forward by the minister, as well as some of the ideas concerning the direction we are going in aboriginal affairs. I will conclude by paralleling what the minister did. The minister very fairly and articulately put forward the government's guiding principles with regard to treaty negotiation. What I want to do this morning is introduce the basic principles of the B.C. Liberal Party and caucus on treaty negotiations.
First of all, I would like to put forward some reflections. I notice that everyone agrees that the status quo with regard to aboriginal affairs must change. Indeed, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Hon. Ron Irwin, has clearly expressed the federal government's desire to change the ministry in a profoundly different direction and to establish a whole new policy that would take aboriginal affairs into a new direction. Actually, the minister has gone so far as to say that it is the desire of the federal government to get out of the aboriginal business altogether. There would be nothing wrong with getting rid of the Indian Act and the department altogether.
In some ways this is a very desirable goal to achieve. The reason is that I think we all recognize that the status quo has not benefited aboriginal people. Aboriginals have not benefited from the Indian Act or from the Department of Indian Affairs. If nothing else, one can point to disease and demoralization among aboriginal peoples. As well, I think non-aboriginals, including both levels of government -- federal and provincial -- recognize that what is far more desirable is a people who are more self-reliant and self-responsible and who are, in some ways, full citizens of Canada.
Interestingly enough, this is what the federal government wants and what the aboriginal peoples and the non-aboriginal people want. They want to get rid of the Indian Act. They want to get rid of the Department of Indian Affairs and move on to a whole new phase of a very constructive relationship between aboriginals and non-aboriginals throughout Canada.
Indeed, coinciding with the federal policy, the British Columbia government is changing from its position established over decades -- actually, I think one could argue over a century; perhaps a centuries-old position. The changes, incidentally, began with the announcement and commitments made by the former government, and, interestingly enough, the minister then is now the current Leader of the Third Party in this chamber.
But where do we go from here? There is this broad agreement that the provincial government doesn't simply want to say: "Well, we'll just take up whatever the federal government wants to get rid of." The federal government wants out of the aboriginal business; it wants to get rid of its ministry. That's their goal. Does this mean that the provincial government establishes the Department of Indian Affairs and something akin to an Indian Act or whatever it is? Surely that's not what the provincial government wants, and the present minister and the previous minister, I believe, have expressed this. No, that's not their desire.
Once we get into that kind of thinking, we recognize that self-government is a possibility. But the question is: how do we define self-government? So we see an ironical situation: the federal government wants out of the aboriginal business, the provincial government is not too anxious to take up the aboriginal business, and yet people say: "Well, okay, what's the option? Self-government for aboriginal peoples." At this stage, we don't know what self-government really means; in fact, on closer examination, self-government is defined in literally dozens of ways. There are many models out there of what self-government really means.
While the Canadian people and the people of British Columbia want to do away with the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs, nonetheless they have found themselves caught. Where's our future? Where are we going? What kind of certainty will we have in the future in the various sectors of our society? The status quo is unacceptable, because we are reaching a threshold of uncertainty in our communities and their economies. Indeed, beyond that, in mining, fishing, ranching and forestry, there is a feeling of anxiety as well as uncertainty. The status quo contributes to this uncertainty.
I must admit that we have some situations occurring right now which increase not only uncertainty but anxiety. I'm thinking of an example such as the recent announcement by the Musqueam reserve in southwest Vancouver of an increase in the amount of lease money that is being sought by the Musqueam. Some leases that have been asked are a minimum of $30,000 per year. Some of those families and, indeed, many retired people in that area.... Many people think that they're rich and what not, but the fact is that many people have found themselves retired without an income and are just not in a position to come up with $30,000 a year in lease money, regardless of what the past has been for the last 30 years. To be sure, this is to be negotiated, but it's that kind of example that contributes to the anxiety there.
People all over want some sort of resolution to happen; people everywhere want to achieve some definite objectives. Indeed, what I constantly hear is that people want something established that is lasting -- a treaty that is lasting. Indeed, people put it in the context of: "What we want is something like a once-and-for-all resolution in terms of land claims." People also want an open process of negotiation so that no one will come out of the process believing they've been unjustly treated. Everyone has said that they want their say; they want to be able to contribute where their interests count. Another way to phrase it is that everyone has expressed that at the end
[ Page 13812 ]
of the day, when there is some sort of resolution, they want to have had their day in court. They want to have had their day to express those interests and have them become part of the resolution when it is all over -- not just to say, "This is our position," and then it's left up in midair.
This is the anxiety expressed by third parties. I'm sure we'll get into a good debate to clarify some of the issues. As a matter of fact, at the outset I hope the debate proceeds in a direction that perhaps elaborates and illuminates essentially where we are going with the entire treaty process, rather than being just some sort of interpartisan debate. I'm pretty optimistic that that's a possibility. But third parties have expressed some concerns about the treaty negotiation process as to their input and involvement, and whether their interests will be truly represented. So we'll have a good debate on that and try to flesh that out. Hopefully, the third parties' concerns will be addressed.
[12:00]
The minister touched on it: information is so vital, so essential; what is necessary is to get as much information out as possible; there cannot be any closed deal that has not allowed the dissemination of information; that everyone's fully informed. Indeed, what is requested by everyone is some open dialogue. I think some of the remarks by the minister are most helpful in that direction, if we achieve those objectives.
A comment that I believe is worth emphasizing at the outset in these introductory remarks is the following: there are many people who are under the impression that what we should seek at the end of the day is some sort of integration of aboriginal peoples into mainstream Canadian society. This is an idea that really touches a nerve in the aboriginal community. First of all, they have pointed out that that is not on; integration will not work because it has already been tried and it did not work. Indeed, the argument has often been put forward that it has devastated their people and undermined their culture, languages, identities and even their livelihood.
If you put forward the argument that Canadian society is truly a multicultural society, it's easy for all other Canadians to envisage their roots in some homeland somewhere else. If you're English, your homeland is England; if you're Scottish, you homeland is Scotland -- at least that's where the inspiration is from. Holland, Germany, Japan, China, India: there's always some part of the world where your roots can be identified and that defines what your culture is. It's easy for other Canadians to be multicultural, because there is some sort of homeland. The problem for aboriginals, as they express it, is that they have a homeland here, on the North American continent. On that basis, aboriginals have argued: "We need land to preserve our culture and our livelihood; we need land for economic sustenance."
While all of that is essential to understand, there is one argument that I would like to address briefly, as well, that has been put forward from time to time, and it's a valid argument. If we're moving toward a system of establishing homelands for aboriginal peoples, are we not replicating something that we've seen in South Africa? Isn't that something that we Canadians have found repugnant and that we do not agree with? I really do want to respond to that very legitimate argument, because it looks prima facie as if it has some validity. And it has some validity, but I would like to put into the record.... My apologies go to Prof. Menno Boldt, who, in his book Surviving As Indians, has dealt with this particular issue definitively, I think. With apologies to Professor Boldt, I would like to enter into the record and into the debate the following argument.
The Canadian government has censured the South African government for five heinous sins: for legally classifying people by race, for segregating indigenous peoples into homelands and urban ghettos, for dispossessing indigenous peoples from most of their lands, for administering indigenous peoples as a separate department of government, and for denying indigenous peoples the right to vote.
The Indian Act has defined Indian status in essentially racial terms, with few exceptions. Indians are de facto segregated on reserves and in urban ghettos. Indians have been dispossessed of almost all their lands. Indians are administered under a separate department: the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Although in 1960 Indians were given the federal franchise of one person, one vote, it has nonetheless left them powerless. It has not liberated them from political oppression, nor has it eliminated racism and injustice. Because Indians in Canada are allowed to exercise some democratic rights denied to blacks in South Africa, the Canadian government pretends that its treatment of Indians is more enlightened. But what is the evidence of this? Indians in Canada and blacks in South Africa have the same goals: both pursue self-determination for the purpose of liberating themselves from oppression, racism and injustice. However, self-determination calls for different approaches in different circumstances.
Blacks in South Africa, who constitute a numerical majority in their state, could best achieve self-determination through the democratic concept of one person, one vote, so they pursue this goal. But South African whites, the dominant group, rejected this notion and offered homelands to blacks, where they could exercise self-government instead. Indians in Canada constitute approximately 2 percent of the population, and they cannot possibly achieve self-determination through one person, one vote, so they press for adequate homelands -- reserves -- with Indian self-government. But the Canadian government, representing the dominant group, insists on giving them one person, one vote instead.
The tactics are opposite, but the motives of the two governments are identical. Both are protecting existing constitutional power and arrangements, and both are determined to use their powers to forestall any significant shift in those arrangements.
Maybe a valid argument that has often been put forward is that what is being proposed in terms of self-government and land attached to that.... Is that not establishing some homelands? But I would like to suggest that what I've just outlined, which I think Menno Boldt has expressed articulately.... There is another perfectly valid position there as well.
I think that the fundamental question we all face is: is the acceptance of a special status...? I'm not so sure that we should accept a special status, but if it comes down to that, does the acceptance of a special status -- exclusivity of being able to determine who is a member of a band and who is able to live on the land -- run antagonistic to the equality of citizenry and rights of all Canadians, which means the assimilation of aboriginal peoples? That's a very difficult, complex issue that results from establishing the question in that context.
[ Page 13813 ]
There is a lot of confusion when certain concepts are used. I like to think that sovereignty is not on the table, and as far as I'm concerned, from a negotiating stance, it should never be on the table. But unfortunately, some aboriginal leaders have expressed that, "No, sovereignty is not on the table," while others have said that it is on the table. Indeed, we should remind ourselves that George Watts, the chairman of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, once said:
"We take the position that we are sovereign nations, that our existence stems from the fact that we were the first peoples here, that we have the aboriginal title to the land, but that sovereignty is one that could coexist along with the rest of Canada. We're not talking about being sovereign nations as far as having post offices, armed forces and monetary systems of our own; what we are talking about is having Indian governments within the Confederation of Canada."
That is a position that some people feel is just not on, and yet the Nuu-chah-nulth will put it on the table. That creates some sort of anxiety. Inevitably, somewhere along the line that must be resolved.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
Or take a look at this one. As James Gosnell -- and I think both the minister and myself have tremendous respect for the Gosnell family and the present chairman of the Nisga'a Tribal Council, Joe Gosnell -- put it in 1984:
"We are the true owners of British Columbia. The Indians across the province own everything" -- I emphasize "own," incidentally -- "the rivers, the trees, the bugs, the animals -- you name it. Subsurface rights, the air, the rain, the whole shot: that's what we mean when we say we have aboriginal title to the land."
Yet James Gosnell also said at another time:
"The historical fact is that the aboriginal title does cover most of B.C. But who ever said we are seeking ownership of all B.C.? Never has that been said."
So in one quotation the term "ownership" has been used -- that they own the land -- and the other is one that suggests no, they don't have ownership over the land.
I suggest it's not that I'm trying to portray either Mr. Watts or Mr. Gosnell in a negative light. I think I understand what they're getting at. But these are illustrations of the kind of confusion that is out there when we use these terms. What do they mean? In that context, this is where the negotiations are so critical.
In terms of several points that the minister made in his opening remarks, I would like to follow up some of them in detail, but I shall do that at a later time. What I would like to do now, very briefly -- and I think it's very fair, because the government has laid out its basic, guiding principles on treaty negotiation -- is put forward the Liberal position on the basic principles of treaty negotiations. In a way, it's really an announcement.
First, a B.C. Liberal government will negotiate treaties. A B.C. Liberal government intends to honour the province's commitment to negotiate fair and affordable treaties with the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.
Second, British Columbians need a vigorous spokesman for their interests. The province has an obligation to uphold its ownership and legislative authority over its lands and resources on behalf of all British Columbians. The aboriginal communities, as we know, have strong advocates to represent their interests at the negotiating table -- and so they should -- so non-aboriginals need a negotiating team that will vigorously defend the interests of the rest of British Columbians.
Third, British Columbians also need a government that will listen to them. British Columbians need effective and meaningful consultation, with their interests on the table. So we're committed to ensuring that the public is kept informed and given the opportunity to provide input into the treaty process, without impairing the effectiveness of negotiations.
Fourth, treaties must be affordable. We agree in the principle with the minister. Our position is that while treaties must provide fair compensation to first nations, they must take into consideration the economy of British Columbia. Affordable treaty negotiations and settlements will not hinder but contribute to the economy of the province, through greater economic certainty.
Fifth, private property will not be on the table. Affordability also means minimizing the impact of treaties on existing interests. Private properties therefore will not be on the table. In private property rights we believe in including not only fee simple ownership of land but also leases, licences and other property-based interests. I think it's on this note that we can get into some debate, because what is so vitally important is to acquire a definition of what private property really means. It's one thing to say that private property is not on the table, but what does that include or exclude?
[12:15]
Sixth, treaties must create certainty. A healthy economy requires a certainty of title to the province's land and resources, and the treaty process must achieve that certainty. As a fundamental term of any treaty, B.C. Liberals -- on this side of the House -- believe that the provincial government must require that each aboriginal group recognizes and agrees to the final and binding nature of the treaty, in return for fair compensation.
Seventh, equal rights and equal responsibility for all British Columbians. A healthy economy also requires fair access to the economic resources of the province. We support programs to enhance economic opportunities for aboriginal peoples; but we do not support, however, the creation of special property rights for any one group of British Columbians.
Eighth, B.C. Liberals support aboriginal governments within the Canadian constitution. Aboriginal peoples have the right to autonomy and to the same measure of community-based government as other Canadians. While aboriginal affairs are primarily a federal responsibility, as we all know, we believe that the provincial government must participate in the development of aboriginal governing institutions within the constitution of Canada.
Ninth, British Columbians need an honest and open debate about treaty-making. Government must be accountable for the agreements it signs on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Treaties should be fully debated in the Legislature, and according to what the minister has been saying, I trust that they will be. Before passing any enacting legislation, our position is that a Liberal government would refer the treaty to a standing committee, which would hold public forums in the communities it involved and affected.
Tenth, British Columbians need a timetable for treaty negotiations. All parties must commit to prompt resolution of treaty claims. Negotiation timetables should be established, and all parties should commit to them.
[ Page 13814 ]
Eleventh, no more interim-measures agreements. We are going to have an interesting debate on this, but our position is that lasting treaties are preferable to stopgap interim-measures agreements. Resources now being diverted to ad hoc, secretly negotiated interim agreements are better devoted to the negotiation of treaties.
We have come to this point after careful consideration and a lot of consultation with people across this province, and I've certainly been active in this. On that basis, ironically enough, I believe that these principles are fundamental to establishing some of the same objectives outlined by the minister.
According to the minister, the government wants to establish some sort of certainty, and the way to do this is through some sort of resolutions that are fair, affordable and lasting. That is actually our objective as well. What we have here is the basis for the foundation of a debate between ourselves on this side of the House and the government as to how to achieve these objectives.
Since we are at committee stage, I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to wish all members a very enjoyable weekend, and I move the House do now adjourn.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]