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)
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 15
[ Page 13963 ]
The House met at 10:06 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Jarvis: I would like the Legislature to welcome 25 students from Seycove Community Secondary School in North Vancouver-Seymour, and their teacher Mr. Steffens.
A. Warnke: On behalf of my colleague the member for Langley, I wish to introduce to the House visitors from Simonds Elementary School in Langley. There are 70 students and parents, and with them is their teacher Mr. Ewert. I would appreciate very much if the House would make them most welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply today: in Committee of Supply A, the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services; and in this House, Committee B, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).
A. Warnke: Yesterday we adjourned at a point at which I introduced the discussion on Delgamuukw. Not to necessarily revisit the case that I will assume is well known.... In fact, we had a brief discussion about that to the point that the minister very briefly outlined his view of Delgamuukw. The reason why.... It wasn't to revisit an old case. The reason I raised the question once again was that there is a difference of interpretation that has been given to the Delgamuukw case. I suppose this introduces the next stage of our discussion on Aboriginal Affairs as it affects the ministry; that's coming up in this fiscal year.
In attempting to seek resolution or settle the land claims issue, there is nonetheless an interpretation that suggests that when you take a look at the Sparrow case, what the justice had put forward is actually quite limited in scope. There are aboriginal rights with regard to fishing rights in that particular case but the aboriginal rights are very, very limited in scope. Similarly, in Delgamuukw the justice.... I will not repeat it -- what Justice McEachern had put forward is in the record now -- but there is an interpretation of Delgamuukw that the aboriginal claim had actually been denied but for a very delimited area which Justice McEachern referred to. There is a view that the present provincial government and perhaps the federal government are taking some liberties with a very small part of a particular decision and expanding that to the point that the decisions reached in Sparrow, in Delgamuukw and elsewhere are not really what the justices had put forward. That is essentially the reason for raising the case of Delgamuukw as an example of this view that what the government has put forward, and what the ministry has articulated so well in the past and in interviews.... He's got his interpretation, which is an interpretation. But there are other critics, and in fact he's well aware of them. I believe he has been confronted by critics such as radio interviewers, and so on, who just simply put forward that this is not what the courts decided at all. As a matter of fact, it has even been put to me in one interview that I had with a radio interviewer that it was quite the contrary; the results of the case are quite the contrary to what is being claimed.
Having said that, it adds some ambiguity and some questions. When we go back to some of the minister's statements about trying to seek a fair and honourable resolution in treaty form, what we also have.... That minister is supposed to represent the interests of British Columbia. He mentioned that yesterday. Nonetheless, there is a view that suggests he does not represent the interests of British Columbia -- that the minister has made concessions prior to negotiations or while negotiations are going on.
There are these two views. I don't want to belabour the point, but I want to put it out there because it is a common theme that comes up in several interviews, on radio, in newspapers, and so on. I just would like to provide the minister with the opportunity to address and respond to these two views of the cases of Sparrow and Delgamuukw. We can just focus on Delgamuukw; that would be fine. But there are these two views. And I would like to see the minister respond to that.
[10:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: As we get into this part of our discussion with regard to the interpretation of Delgamuukw, I just want to say to the hon. member that I regret that members of the Reform Party are not present in the House today. I think it's unfortunate that they are not here to hear my comments as we get into this part of the discussion. I am aware that when they do finally show up in the House this week -- if they show up, or if it's next week -- they will be wanting to revisit a lot of this territory. I appreciate the way the hon. member has framed the discussion for this part of the debate. I will be seeking ways to respond respectfully to their questions, but also seeking to advise them of the comments that are in Hansard, of which I hope they will avail themselves, because I think it's not good stewardship of the time of this House to be revisiting the same area later on.
With regard to Delgamuukw, I want to say, first of all, that in listening very carefully to the hon. member's remarks, I am somewhat surprised -- and he may not have intended to do this -- that most of his references were to what we referred to as Delgamuukw 1, which was the original court case in 1991. It seemed to me that most of the hon. member's comments when he was talking about Delgamuukw were in reference to that first case. I think that any lawyer would state that the appeal and the results of the appeal case would be even more important than the results of the first Delgamuukw case, because indeed some of the findings of the 1991 decision were overturned. As I said yesterday, within the Delgamuukw cases there were not winners and there were not losers. But there was clarification of that which is uncertain, and the courts made some very clear statements with regard to the roles of governments in seeking to negotiate in order to define that which is not currently defined -- the courts saying that it's not their role to do that; it is the role of government.
So I do want to revisit some comments that I have made with regard to Delgamuukw. Just to go through a three-stage
[ Page 13964 ]
process here.... What I want to do, first of all, is outline our understanding of the result of the Delgamuukw cases. Then I will advise the House with regard to government policy -- in other words, what we have done as a result of these two court cases -- because these two court cases do have very significant imperatives coming from the court with regard to the role of government. Thirdly, I will outline how it has worked. I will put into the record a recent case called the Sam Green case, and I will point out how the court has validated government policy in the very text of that case. What I'm going to do, then, is try to remove the political rhetoric and put in a factual account of how our government has understood the directives of the court cases, the policy we've put in place, and how that policy has shown up and been referenced within an actual court decision.
As you know, the Court of Appeal of B.C. ruled in June 1993 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 Court of Appeal of B.C., constitute a growing body of legal opinion that 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. Let's be very clear about that. The government of B.C. has underlying title to the land within this province; there's no question about that. The existence of aboriginal rights does not call into question the Crown's title. Let us be very clear about that, too. 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 on the Delgamuukw found 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. That is the basic understanding -- a thumbnail sketch -- of the outcome of those two Delgamuukw decisions.
We also reference the Sparrow decision there. I think the hon. member is aware, with regard to the Sparrow decision, that it was made clear in that context -- and, in that case, a somewhat different interpretation of some of the things the hon. member said -- that "aboriginal and treaty rights are capable of evolving over time and must be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner." That is a quote from the learned justices. Governments may regulate existing aboriginal rights only for a compelling and substantial objective, such as the conservation and management of resources. After conservation goals are met, aboriginal people must be given priority over other user groups to fish for food.
So that is a body of law that formulates the policy we are now seeking to fulfil. I do not agree that there are matters of interpretation here that are selective. The interpretation that we have used goes right to the very quotations that would be quoted by the Reform Party and others who seek to create the impression that it is not necessary to be involved in interim measures and thorough negotiations -- indeed, that the imperatives of the court case don't exist. They do exist. We have a responsibility as a government to obey the law, and we are seeking to fulfil the law.
With regard to that, we have come up with policy. Part of that policy is the "Crown Land Activities and Aboriginal Rights Policy Framework," which was recently released. This deals with the issue that we need a framework to advise government employees and third parties with regard to how to function within these circumstances. So first of all, this policy is based on the recognition that the court cases indicate that there are non-exclusive rights -- they're not ownership rights or property rights. They're integral to a distinctive culture. They depend on historical occupancy and use, and the activity must have existed before 1846 and it's protected under the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982.
The policy framework that I released on January 25, 1995, indicates that the province will endeavour to make best efforts -- and I want you to notice those words, "make best efforts." If it should come to a court case, we want the courts to recognize that we have made our best efforts to avoid any infringement of known aboriginal rights during the conduct of business. I think, hon. member, that in making best efforts to avoid infringement, the courts, in the context of common law, would recognize that when due diligence is done, there have to be reasonable time frames. You can't just go on forever, waiting for a response to a letter or waiting for a return of a phone call or waiting for a comment. You need to give reasonable time for that to happen, but it cannot go on forever, and our policy does not allow that to be the case.
This means that the various line ministries must set a process to establish if the right exists, and they must do that through consultation. They must make their best effort; they must determine if proposed activity could coexist. In other words, are there ways that the proposed activity on Crown land could actually dovetail with the interests of the first nations? In some cases, that actually could produce a very positive result in terms of opportunities for partnerships and joint ventures. They must seek to resolve matters where there is clearly a conflicting interest, and they must attempt to justify infringements where they're unavoidable. So even within that policy, there is the recognition that infringements can be justified.
The policy is focused on meeting the legal requirements of Sparrow and Delgamuukw. The courts support negotiation rather than litigation. I don't think there is any question about that. When we hear certain commentators or certain politicians around this province saying that we should go ahead and litigate, when we hear it said that the natives lost in court, that is an unhelpful oversimplification of a very complex situation. The fact is that when it comes right down to it, we're obeying the courts. We're doing what the courts have told us to do: negotiate rather than litigate. The policy clarifies our
[ Page 13965 ]
legal obligations and enables government to make timely, effective and efficient decisions while taking into account specific aboriginal interests. Let's bear in mind that we are responding to this body of law, which is a very new set of circumstances within this province, so there are going to be times, as we're on this curve of policy implementation, when important questions will be raised about how this is being managed. We are seeking to do our very best to incorporate those issues as they emerge. In many cases, the proposed land use activity and the aboriginal right in question can coexist. Government is working to ensure that line ministries develop consistent and coordinated approaches to implementation.
What we have there is our position with regard to Delgamuukw and the policy that we've put in place, and now I would like to, thirdly, go into how it has worked. This is a bit lengthy, but I want to make this case. I'm referring to the decision in the Sam Green case, which was rendered April 4, 1995. It was Gwoimt v. Skeena Cellulose Ltd., the Attorney General of British Columbia and the Council of Forest Industries. Let's recognize first that as a result of the court action on that date, Skeena Cellulose succeeded in getting the Supreme Court of B.C. to lift a seven-year injunction against timber harvesting which had been granted to the Gitksan in 1988. I believe that was during the time that the present leader of the Reform Party was the Minister of Native Affairs.
Since that time, logging activity in that area has been suspended because of a Supreme Court injunction. Let us make that very clear. That injunction does not exist as a result of anything that this government has done, or anything that I'm aware of that comes out of the Delgamuukw decision, since 1988 predates those decisions. This was in an area north of the Babine River. As I said, it's referred to as the Sam Green injunction.
Mr. Justice Hunter referred to the 1993 B.C. Court of Appeal decision in Delgamuukw, which held that there are non-exclusive aboriginal rights in the area. Non-exclusive means that the Gitksan cannot exclude all others from using that land and resources. That is very clear in that body of law. The judge made the decision to discharge the injunction by balancing the rights and interests of the Gitksan and Skeena Cellulose. I think that reflects what the courts have been saying, and therefore that is what the judge found. He concluded that limited timber harvesting would not significantly interfere with the rights to land use and resources that the Gitksan continued to assert. In reaching this conclusion, Mr. Justice Hunter noted that the government of B.C. had made policies in its planning processes to identify aboriginal rights and to take measures to avoid infringing on those rights. Let's be very clear about that. The learned justice referenced the policy of this government to support his finding that resulted in lifting an injunction. I think that is very significant; that is an affirmation. I don't think that anybody could argue that that is not an affirmation of the policy of this government.
[10:30]
There is also another affirmation. He referred to the treaty negotiation process that allows for the adoption of interim measures. Let's think about this in the context of the Liberal Party's recently announced policy where they are calling for a moratorium on interim measures. Here, in lifting an injunction, the justice has referred to the treaty negotiation process that allows for the adoption of interim measures, including co-management programs, which can be employed to protect priority areas or to increase participation of first nations in decision-making. I submit that this is a very clear affirmation of the policy this government has put in place. This means that we are on the right track and we have done the right thing, according to the Delgamuukw decisions. This case is a good example of where our government's policy can be demonstrated to work in the interests of all British Columbians to respect aboriginal rights and to promote coexistence and facilitate the economic development of this policy.
I'll put it to you this way, hon. member: if we had followed a policy that said there would be a moratorium, we probably would have lost the case, the injunction would have continued, and the forest industry couldn't have got back to work. I think this is a very clear affirmation of our process, and it also puts the boots to the Reform Party's accusation of gridlock. It puts the boots to the kind of statement that Marlie Beets has been making, that COFI has been calling for a moratorium on interim measures. Yes, we have to deal with those issues that COFI raises, where they can identify a problem. But to ask for a blanket moratorium on interim measures would result in more of these cases being caught up in the courts and more decisions where the courts would say that we were not fulfilling an appropriate resolution of the Delgamuukw.
The Chair: Minister, I must advise you that the allotted time has elapsed. The member opposite can intervene and say he'd like to have you finish your statement, but I must advise you of that.
A. Warnke: It's not really up to me. If someone would say he's interesting, just get up and say it.
D. Streifel: I was engrossed so deeply in listening to the minister and the explanation of his capacity as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and where this government is going with that.... I beg the minister to continue, with the indulgence of the House.
Hon. J. Cashore: This gives me the opportunity to say, for the record, that it's very important to recognize that the court has affirmed the policy of this government with regard to the way in which we have been fulfilling the decisions of the court, and this has enabled that injunction to be lifted.
A. Warnke: Taking a look at interim measures, the minister conceded that in critiquing our position on this side....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Well, I think it's worthwhile to have this discussion at this time.
The fact is that a number of representatives, and the minister identified COFI as one of them.... As a matter of fact, COFI's representative has made it very clear and probably has told the minister that there are several examples where, as a result of the interim measures agreements that have been put in place or negotiated by this government, it has not produced a green light for the development of the forest industry. A number of examples have been put forward by Marlie Beets and COFI that suspended any sort of development in the forest industry.
One may ask why this is so. There are certain cases where it is very clear that aboriginals have put forward a claim, and
[ Page 13966 ]
the forest industry wants to develop a certain region. I can think of one example just west of Campbell River where it's not on-reserve and doesn't involve parks or any places like that, but as a result of a mere claim, the particular company was essentially told by the local aboriginal group that there was no use even pursuing this matter any further, because they were just going to sit on their claim.
This is an interesting and legitimate debate. From our vantage point, the interim measures agreements have not worked because there is no reason to push forward an agreement. In other words, there is no incentive to continue negotiations, and we've seen this in a few examples. What has happened is that in a number of cases, the interim measures agreement has actually suspended the non-aboriginal intent to develop, even if the area of development is off-reserve. There has simply been a claim put forward.
I agree that in the initial stages of putting forward an interim measures agreement, one of the original incentives for putting it in place was that it allows and provides that kind of flexibility, but it's very difficult. This is the reason these issues are very complex, because as much as possible, we want that kind of flexibility, and the interim measures agreements were to provide that flexibility; but the outcome in a number of cases has been quite the contrary. It has not provided the kind of flexibility needed before a final resolution is developed. In a nutshell, that's our rationale. That's our perspective when looking at interim measures agreements. It might well be that we will pick this up later on. I know that one of my colleagues is extremely interested in this discussion.
There are a couple of points in the remarks made by the minister that I want to pick up on, because they may need clarification. I would also say at the outset that some of the perspectives I have put forward in terms of the different views of Delgamuukw have been based on the 1991 decision. In the appeal and in the results of the appeal as they have been put in 1993, I would agree that there are aspects that certainly put a different view on, or overturn, the original 1991 decision. But it's interesting that there is a perspective out there.... And the minister is quite correct to address the fact that the general impression, I suppose, of the Delgamuukw case being lost is based on the 1991 decision. I won't pick on any one particular person, but there have been some efforts which suggest that while the 1991 decision is there, why should we move on, essentially. The 1993 appeal did turn things around with regard to the original 1991 agreement.
What some people have also suggested -- and I'm sure the minister in his remarks suggested that this is not the course to take -- is that that appeal is only in the B.C. courts; it should be kicked one stage upwards to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think the direction given by the 1993 appeal is that we should avoid kicking it up. The courts are reluctant to have it kicked up to the Supreme Court of Canada; it is far more preferable to negotiate. On that basis I think I would agree with the minister. Look, the courts have given the direction, and in the last analysis they're highly reluctant to make decisions where it is preferable to negotiate -- and the proper role of government and the political forum is to negotiate, especially when we get down to definitions.
I think the courts have had a lot of difficulty not only on Delgamuukw or Sparrow, but on Calder and others as well. There is a pattern here where the courts have some difficulty with definitions. Somehow it is better to have the negotiations take place to establish a definition of the concepts in terms that we use -- for example, inherent-right-to-self-government. I find it kind of interesting that a decade or two decades ago, inherent right to self-government as a concept was rejected by a number of people; then over a period of time the inherent right to self-government concept has actually been accepted by a number of people -- the same people who opposed it earlier.
The problem, of course, is defining what is meant by inherent right to self-government. There again the courts have suggested that maybe this should be defined more precisely before you have them interpret a legal case on some sort of ambiguous concept. I would suggest that the concepts of inherent right to self-government or, for that matter, aboriginal right are not really clearly defined.
One matter we addressed very briefly yesterday that I think we should perhaps have a look at as we proceed through these discussions is that, obviously, to avoid further conflict in the courts, we want to negotiate. We want to negotiate in such a way that we define some of the concepts being used. Once we have a case that has been defined and put into the public forum, then that establishes itself as a model for other negotiations. We have seen it where, I believe, the Nunavut resolution has put forward a model. We've had other negotiations take place throughout Canada which have also put forward this model. Right now, as it stands, we are in the middle of Nisga'a negotiations. We noted already that the Nisga'a negotiations are quite different from the other negotiations taking place under the Treaty Commission process -- not only different but entirely separate. The minister did concede in some of his remarks that while there is no replication -- one cannot assume that a replication of whatever is resolved in the Nisga'a case would be applied elsewhere -- the Nisga'a case would nonetheless be seen as that kind of model. It is quite possible that there will be resolutions in the Nisga'a case in a way that will define some of the ambiguous concepts that we have before us, such as aboriginal right, the inherent right to self-government, and so on. So I would like to explore the Nisga'a case.
[10:45]
There is more than just speculation. Unfortunately, documents are being released in Vancouver as we speak, whereby some.... Perhaps we will elaborate on this in a little while. But documents are being released now that illustrate that the government is moving very, very quickly in seeking resolution on the Nisga'a case. At the outset, therefore, I would like to ask the minister just exactly what the current state of the Nisga'a case is. Is there some validity to some of the speculation taking place about the Nisga'a: that we're going to see it and the reasons for it in the very near future? I've already heard one comment by, I believe, the Premier. I guess what concerns me, and what would concern a lot of people.... Establishing some sort of time frame is one thing, but on the other hand, we have to be very careful of what is being defined in terms of the concepts and whether that would establish itself as a model for some of the other treaty negotiations that are obviously going to take place.
There are a number of aspects that I've touched on, and perhaps we could just deal with them one at a time. Does the minister see some implications that resolving the Nisga'a case would provide a model but would also clearly define some of these ambiguous concepts? It's more than a model; it defines
[ Page 13967 ]
some of the ambiguous concepts that are already there, and that could be embraced by other bands as they seek negotiations.
Hon. J. Cashore: Before I answer the question about the Nisga'a, the hon. member did refer to a situation west of Campbell River. I would ask him if he could make some specifics of that known to us; he might even wish to send a note. We would like to find out more about that. I would say that in almost every case we've followed up where we've heard about that, we've found that there were other factors involved.
Also, I expect, perhaps in another part of the debate, to be getting more into interim measures issues. Then there is our responsibility to consult where there may be an interest that comes out of the policy on Crown land activities that I referred to earlier. Quite often we find that it's actually another consultation altogether that is a factor.
It should be pointed out that the line ministries have a responsibility to consult not only on this issue; line ministries have to consult municipalities, regional districts, leasehold interests and so forth on a variety of issues. It is complex, but we'd be interested in looking at that and finding out about it, because we work very closely with the line ministries on these things.
With regard to the question about the Nisga'a.... I think this is a question about: "Is this going to be a template for future treaties?" The first thing we have to recognize is the diversity of this great province -- diversity in terms of topography and in terms of demographics. There is no template. However, any decision made in settling any treaty is obviously very important and significant, and there are certain issues in treaties that do have a very direct relationship to other treaties.
With other issues, where it's obvious that the comparisons are going to be made, at the end of the day we want to be able to say there was an evenness of administration in terms of presenting our position and in terms of the result you get at the treaty table. First of all, they have to recognize the differences in topography, demographics and other factors. Following that, it is very important to recognize that, yes, as each treaty is settled, there are going to be important and significant implications for the others -- but not a template. We can't say template, because the circumstances vary so much.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minster could take a point to elaborate on for the committee. The situation in the Clayoquot Sound region, where an interim measures agreement, or a special agreement, exists between the band and the province with respect to cutting rights.... The opposition has had representation from licenced holders and logging contractors in the region that a specific approval is required by the band in order for the cutting rights to be approved. I wonder if the minister could just clarify this particular agreement in Clayoquot Sound, which, I think he would agree, is substantially different than any other interim measures agreement in the province, particularly with respect to resource allocations.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to Clayoquot Sound.... As the hon. member knows, the nub of that agreement was to set up the Clayoquot Sound Central Region Board, which will provide an opportunity for representatives of first nations and others in the area to sit down together and review plans and the work that is coming forward with regard to the industrial development in that area. That work is going on. I met with the members of the Central Region Board just two weeks ago. They have developed a very good working relationship.
Now, let us recognize that, in doing that, we have the Central Region Board, which is representing interests of two entities: the first nations of the central region -- first nations of the Clayoquot Sound -- and also the representatives who have the responsibility to represent the interests of the municipalities, regional districts and factors involving industry and labour. It is my understanding that the work they are doing has been moving along very well. I want to make it very clear that they are not working in a process where they have a veto, but this is far better than working in a situation where there is a great deal of conflict, where we're having to deal with injunctions or applications for injunctions. They are moving forward very well there with addressing the questions that come before them.
They have expressed a concern to me that some have suggested that in instances, perhaps, when a logging plan has not moved forward as quickly as some would like to see it move forward.... Some have said that it's because of them holding it up. They have advised me that that is not the case and that, as a matter of fact, they're eager to have a chance to get on with their work of looking at some of those plans, because some of them have not yet got to them for them to have an opportunity for review.
To go back to a point I made a little while ago, I think that.... I want to be very, very clear that in carrying out our policy, there have to be time limits for consultation; it has to be done in a reasonable way. Now that we have the Sam Green case and I think some elements of the previous Takla case, we have an indication from the court that we're on the right track and that in doing our due diligence, we have the right to not let things go on and on forever.
At the same time, let's not confuse the situation by suggesting that it's actually the Central Region Board that's holding things up, when in fact that is not the case. There is some work that will be coming before that board, and I'm very confident, given the working relationship they have established, that they will move on those issues with care, due diligence and speed.
W. Hurd: Just to clarify the point with the minister. These are licence holders who have a tenure arrangement with the Crown to harvest a volume of timber in that particular region. The information that certainly I have is that they are required to submit a five-year cut control plan or a long-term cutting plan. I understand that that cutting plan requires approval from the band in this particular region, under the interim measures agreement. If the minister can assure me that that isn't the case, then I think we can move on.
The licence holders are required, to my knowledge, to submit the plans to the first nations in the region. They are required, in some cases, to take the band chief on a tour of the operating and working area to discuss the plans, and there is a requirement that the band sign off in some way on these plans. I wonder if the minister could clarify what role the band might play in connection with the approval of these cutting permits, because I'm aware of layoffs that have occurred from
[ Page 13968 ]
smaller contractors as a result of not being able to proceed with their applications supposedly because of the need for band involvement.
I wonder if the minister can just define what he means by consultation. Since he was the one who brought up the matter of time limits, what would he consider to be, in this particular region of Clayoquot Sound, a reasonable time limit for the approval of these cutting permits to enable loggers and their families to continue to enjoy employment in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: Recognizing that the province has a very serious concern about jobs in the area, we have enabled this process to ensure that the work or the commerce of the province is able to proceed.
There are two kinds of consultation that the hon. member referred to. One is the consultation that takes place in the context of the Central Region Board. Let's remember that in the Central Region Board there are five appointees who are there to represent the interests of the non-aboriginal community. Just a few minutes ago I referenced the Central Region Board and pointed out that these plans have not yet come to them, to my knowledge. We will seek to verify that, and if I'm not correct about that, I will clarify that point. But as of the date that I met with the Central Region Board, they were expressing concern that they were being charged with holding things up, when this plan had not yet come to them.
There is also the Delgamuukw requirement. It is an ongoing requirement which is covered in my Crown land activities policy and which requires that there be consultation. I don't know if the hon. member had an opportunity to hear some of the discussion earlier this morning, but I think we very clearly outlined how an actual court case, the Sam Green case, has supported the policy that the government has followed in seeking to avoid injunctions and holdups. Just very briefly, an injunction that had been in place since 1988 was recently lifted, and the court cited two elements of our government's policy in stating its reason for lifting that injunction. Those elements related to the fact that we are entering into treaty negotiations and that we are in the process of negotiating interim measures. I would say that if we weren't negotiating interim measures, the injunction in that area would have continued.
[11:00]
To get back to Clayoquot, it is true that there is a responsibility to consult. As I said when answering the previous question of the Aboriginal Affairs critic for the official opposition, in some instances, when we've actually researched what has been referenced as something being held up by first nations, we've discovered that there are other mandatory consultation processes taking place as well involving regional districts, municipalities and industry. I'm not saying that that is the case here, but I'm saying that this is another aspect of consultation that needs to be carried out.
In terms of the question, "What is a reasonable time?" I think that has to be assessed on the basis of the circumstances, the magnitude of the issue and the nature of what is involved. I'm not trying to avoid answering that question, but I think we need to ensure that the government staff working on this talk directly to the parties involved -- industry, workers, first nations -- and say: "What do you think would be a reasonable time in order to get a turnaround on this?" I think it always helps to put a time line out there, and therefore the reasonable time has to be site-specific.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I can simplify the discussion by describing for the minister the nature of a typical forest licence, not only in Clayoquot Sound but anywhere else in the province. There is a cut control requirement that requires the licensee to undertake certain measures over a five-year period in order to protect their licence position. There's a cut control quota that provides for an annual harvest that is mandated by the Forest Act. I've talked to forest licensees, and they're telling me that they submit the five-year working plans to the band. They provide tours by personnel for the band chief, to provide input and to explain what is being planned for that particular region, and then I assume that the matter is dealt with by the appropriate ministry -- the Ministry of Forests in this case. Clearly there are time limits that the licensees are facing in terms of market conditions, and they have to meet a cut control provision of their licence by the Ministry of Forests. So the issue of time lines becomes critical or crucial with respect to the business plan of a licensee.
Let me just ask the minister a question. Assuming the five-year plans were provided to the band, and assuming opportunities were given to the band council to tour the affected operations, in the minister's view, would that be sufficient consultation to meet the spirit and intent of the need to consult under interim measures agreements? Or would there be a further requirement? What specific kinds of consultation are we talking about here other than the submission of the plans? Is there any requirement on the part of the band to sign off on those plans? Or is it just sufficient that they be given a copy of them and that the licensee afford every opportunity to explain what's in them? Clearly this is an issue that I think is of concern to licence holders not only in Clayoquot Sound but throughout the province. So can the minister tell us what exactly he means by an appropriate level of consultation that would satisfy him and his ministry that the needs of the court cases have been met?
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I don't think the hon. member has cited a specific instance where he's been able to say that a five-year plan or a particular licence application has gone out for consultation and hasn't been acted on. I think if we could have some specifics on that, it would help. The hon. member is very much aware that the questions he's asking are more in the area of the line ministry: Forests. However, I do recognize that this comes under the Crown land activities policy that has come through from my ministry, so I'm not walking away from these questions. But I do believe the hon. member should be putting most of these questions to the Minister of Forests. We will get a copy of the policy framework from the Ministry of Forests and send it to him. I think that will assist him in being able to frame some of these questions, so we will get that to him. I'm glad to see that the hon. member agrees with me that yes, there should be time lines and that we should approach it in that way; but unless he can come up with some specific plan where it is alleged that it is being held up in a certain way, then it's very difficult to deal with that.
With regard to his question of what I think is an adequate level of consultation, first of all, no, the first nation is not required to sign it off. Secondly, if the first nation is refusing to give a response or engage in any way, then that needs to be taken into consideration in the way in which this issue is being dealt with. But it's very frustrating to try to talk about this in a hypothetical situation if we don't have an actual reference to a concrete situation that the member can cite. I'm not saying
[ Page 13969 ]
that those aren't there, but I'm saying that to be discussing this in lieu of that type of example often creates the suggestion that something's happening that isn't happening. I think it would be helpful if we could put it into the context of a more concrete situation.
W. Hurd: I must confess that I find the minister's response deeply troubling, because as he knows, we have at least 54 interim measures agreements in the province, the thrust of which require consultation with first nations before resource allocations and licences are acted upon. My understanding is that the thrust of these interim measures agreements is required consultation. I guess that the confusion we have on this side of the House is that we can't define exactly what that consultation means.
Is it enough for the licensee or applicant for a back-country recreation tenure on Crown land to submit the plans to the band and offer personnel, tours or whatever else is required to the band to explain what's going on? Is that sufficient? Assuming that the band doesn't respond -- and I don't think that's a hypothetical situation -- is the ministry waiting for some band response to these initiatives from the licensee? Is that what he means by consultation? If the band simply says nothing, is that necessarily a problem?
I think these are important questions, and that the minister, who is claiming that he's being guided by court cases in this area, needs to offer the committee some comfort that.... Is a response required from the band in any way? Is it up to the licensee to demonstrate to the ministry that yes, they've done what they can and they've conducted a tour for the band, provided a copy of the working drawings and provided technical personnel to explain what's going on? Is there then any requirement on the part of the band to acknowledge that this work has gone on and to make any sort of report to the ministry? Is that a requirement? Perhaps we can even deal with that. What response would the minister expect the band to provide to the ministry? Would any response be required?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member suggests that we can't define it. I have already indicated to him that we're going to be sending him the definition in writing. He'll then be able to make very specific references to what is there in writing. It has been accessible to him for quite some time. We'll send that to him; he'll have both the Forests policy and our Crown land activities policy, which is generic, by this afternoon. So he'll have lots of grist for the mill there, by first of all taking the time to review the policy and then putting it against the template of some of the questions he wants to ask.
But in fairness, hon. member, to be discussing these issues in the context of a hypothetical situation creates the impression that something's happening out there that may not actually be happening. I don't think that's fair to any of the policies to handle it in that way. So he may wish to wait until he's had an opportunity to review those very clear policies and then think it through at that time.
He's asked a question again that I have answered, with regard to how much time the band has to respond. I've pointed out very clearly that the government has a responsibility to do its due diligence. If the band refuses to respond, then the government, having been able to say that it's done its due diligence, can proceed. I've also answered his question by saying all of these circumstances are different in terms of their magnitude. Therefore there has to be.... When he's asking for a specific time, it would vary in the circumstance of the situation.
There has to be reason applied to this process. That's exactly what happened in the Sam Green case: the court coming in with the decision that lifted an injunction that had gone on for eight years. The fact that they're now getting ready to go back to work up there is precisely because of the policy of this government. The court has affirmed that in its finding. So we're on the right track here.
W. Hurd: I certainly welcome having an opportunity to read the Crown land activities guide. But I also urge the minister to review the Hansard debate from Committee A, where we've been engaged with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks on questions regarding the Crown land side of his ministry. When asked directly about aspects of Crown lands that the minister feels he and his ministry could be doing a better job on, the aboriginal side of the question was an area he cited as one that needed a great deal of work. I certainly know that cabinet discussions are a routine part of every executive council, and I urge the minister to sit down with his colleague the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks to explore his comments in estimates in Committee A. Clearly there is a concern on the part of the Lands ministry about the time it is taking, particularly in the back-country recreation area, for applications for use of Crown land to be dealt with. I certainly hope that some of those measures can be dealt with.
Perhaps I can just ask one further question with respect to the interim-measures agreement in Clayoquot Sound, which I understand is substantially different from others throughout the province. Can the minister just take a moment to elaborate on what some of the differences would be with the interim measures or tribal agreement with the Crown in Clayoquot Sound, as opposed to others throughout the province? I think that one of the areas of confusion throughout British Columbia with respect to all these interim measures agreements is the fact that there seems to be a different requirement for every one of them.
So I wonder if the minister could answer two questions. First, when we're talking about interim measures agreements, are we dealing with a standard agreement throughout the province? Second, can the minister take a brief moment to explain whether the Clayoquot Sound agreement specifically is any different than others throughout British Columbia?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll just comment on a couple of the references the hon. member made. First of all, with regard to the estimates that have been taking place with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, I have been monitoring that. It is my very clear recognition that the minister has been handling that very well and that he is cognizant of the Crown land activities policy. When he says that we're involved with something new here and in the process of learning and improving as we do that, that is certainly true. I would point out, though, that when the hon. member gives his evaluation of how these issues are being handled, again, I think he has a responsibility, as we all do, to research the facts and to make sure that in actual fact it is as he states it is. I think that is part of his responsibility to the first nations of the province, as well as to the industries and to the workers that he is referencing.
[ Page 13970 ]
[11:15]
I would like to turn now to his questions with regard to Clayoquot Sound. The first question was: is this a standard agreement? Are all interim measures agreements the same? The answer is no, they are not all the same, but they're all based on the same principles. To his second question: if there are differences, what are they in this case? I think the key difference in this case is the setting up of the Central Region Board. But again, the principle of most of the interim measures arrangements is that there be a modus operandi whereby parties can sit down and reason together. We think that provides a much more stable circumstance for the industry, enables keeping people at work, gets away from the type of activity we were seeing in Clayoquot Sound where there were a number of arrests, and recognizes the work of the provincial ombudsman, who stated very clearly to the government at the time of the Clayoquot decision that work was needed with regard to consultation with first nations. I have met with the ombudsman, and the ombudsman has indicated to me that the policy we have put in place has fulfilled the concerns that were addressed when she wrote to us at the time of the Clayoquot decision.
So I think, hon. member, that with regard to the interim measures agreement in Clayoquot, it's a very important situation. It involves a number of factors, and yes, there are differences between it and some others. But let us remember that most of these decisions are to set up a method, a modus operandi whereby parties can find a reasonable resolution, where otherwise there might be conflict that is not productive.
I'd also correct something the hon. member said. He said that were 54 interim measures agreements -- not so much to correct what he said but to indicate that of those 54, 25 are lands and resources agreements. It's a significant number; there's no question about that. But were it not for the fact that those agreements exist, I think we would find that we would have far more examples of, for instance, the blockade up at Duffey Lake that was experienced during the time that the present leader of the Reform Party was Minister of Native Affairs, and other situations that aren't that productive.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether the interim measures agreements are subject to court interpretation?
Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding of the answer to that question is.... I think another way of putting the question is: are they enforceable in the courts? My understanding of the answer is that where there is a contract within it that involves the expenditure of funds, it would be enforceable. Otherwise they are not, and therefore they do not have that legal kind of stature that we seek to achieve, certainly, through treaty settlements.
W. Hurd: I assume that these agreements are signed by the Crown and by the band chief on behalf of the bands; one would make that assumption. What the minister is saying to us is that they do not represent contractual arrangements under the jurisprudence of the province. There is no ability on the part of either party to go before a court and ask for an interpretation of exactly what has been committed, other than any money that may be expended to bring the agreement into force. Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. J. Cashore: They are statements of relationships, and they are not legally enforceable, except insofar as there is a contractual-arrangement reference within the agreement. It is true that they are signed, but they do not have the legal position of a contract, unless there's a contractual arrangement within the agreement.
W. Hurd: Can the minister advise the House from a constitutional standpoint whether any of the commitments that the Crown has made in principle to the bands would have any impact on constitutional matters that might be dealt with through the Treaty Commission? Should we have any concern here that negotiations through the Treaty Commission might in some way be prejudiced or influenced by commitments that the Crown has made in principle under the various interim measures agreements in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: The best way to answer is to state four of the principles that reference the limits of interim measures. They must be consistent with existing legislation; they cannot go outside any existing legislation. They do not affect the province's statutory authority over the management of lands and resources, so they don't supersede the existing statutory authority, and that's why there can't be vetoes or moratoria. They will not anticipate or drive negotiations on lands and resources by defining settlement boundaries in advance of substantive discussion and agreement on these matters at the treaty table. And they must be considered in the light of an assessment of the range of costs and benefits, to ensure that the measure is appropriate, effective and affordable. For the most part, I repeat that interim measures set up a process whereby parties can sit down and meet with regard to resolving issues where an aboriginal interest has been identified.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that the MacMillan Bloedel tree farm licence in the Woss region, I believe, is the subject of a court case, and in this matter the Ministry of Forests is the defendant in the case. They are being sued on the basis of timber allocations that were awarded by the minister. Can the minister assure this House that as this court case unfolds, in which the ministry is being sued by the band for the decisions that it has taken, any commitments made under the interim measures agreement in the course of the trial will not be a factor in the way that case is dealt with before the courts? Does he have any concern that the ministry itself is the subject of a suit in connection with doing its duty, which is to provide timber harvesting in that particular region? Is there any concern here that commitments made under the interim measures agreements might in some way find their way into the court system, sort of vicariously, through that particular case in the North Island?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't want to evade this question, but I want to point out that the question most appropriately goes to the Minister of Forests. I would also like the hon. member to clarify, either now if he can do it or later, whether he is referring to a court case involving Woss. I am not aware of such a court case. I would like a little more background, if he is indeed referring to Woss. He may be referring to a court case involving the Haida first nation on the Queen Charlotte Islands, often referred to as the Haida Gwaii; he may be referring to that. With all respect, I would ask him to clarify exactly what case he is referring to so that we might get a little more definition here.
[ Page 13971 ]
W. Hurd: I think the minister is correct; it is the Haida that are suing the Ministry of Forests. I heard about the case indirectly, but I do know that the Ministry of Forests is being sued in that particular case.
The concern I might have is that interim measures agreements might somehow be introduced into that litigation. While the minister has assured us that they aren't subject to direct court interpretation, there is a concern that the implied commitments of both parties under an interim measures agreement might find their way into this particular case in some way. So I stand corrected. I think the minister is correct that it does involve a Haida suit.
The concern in this case is that it is the ministry that is being sued because of decisions it has taken during the course of its duties. The band in that case is convinced that the appropriate level of consultation and the protection of its interests has not occurred, which is the reason they have decided to pursue litigation. I am just seeking the minister's assurance that he is utterly convinced that the interim measures agreements can in no way be used as a vehicle by either party to compromise the positions of the defendant and the plaintiff in that particular case, which I'm sure will go on for some time.
Hon. J. Cashore: It is my understanding that there is no interim measure in that situation. There have been discussions about interim measures, but to my knowledge there is no interim measure in the situation that the hon. member is referring to. I understand that it's about the renewal of a TFL; but it's not a top-of-mind issue, given that it's more in the area of the Minister of Forests. Unless there's something that I haven't been advised of, there is no interim measure that obtains in that situation.
W. Hurd: It's not that there's no interim measures agreement for the particular region. My question was more generic. Would there be any concern that any interim measures agreement in any portion of the province...? The minister has acknowledged that there are some 25 of them related to land and resources. In light of the fact that the Ministry of Forests is being sued for decisions it has made with respect to resource allocation, is there any concern that any interim measures agreement might provide either party with a guide as to how the case might unfold or in some way compromise the case that might unfold? Or is there really no interim measures agreement in the province that, in the minister's opinion, could have any impact on the conduct of that particular case?
Hon. J. Cashore: There are elements of this question where the Attorney General would be supported by legal staff who could give a fuller answer than I can.
Interim measures would not prejudice the position of the province, as I understand it. I am not aware of any element of interim measures that could result in legal action against members of forest companies or other parties that are impacted. Interim measures are a means whereby those parties may be brought together to consult about how they can address a mutual concern. With regard to an actual definitive legal opinion on the question that he's asking.... I want to be careful here, so we will talk to legal counsel. We'll get advice on how best to put forward the response to that question. But I do want to put myself on the record as saying that I am not aware of any circumstances where I could see this being an issue or a problem. If that is the case, I will certainly stand corrected, but I am certainly not aware of such a situation.
W. Hurd: I appreciate that answer from the minister, with the understanding that the matter is being dealt with by the courts and in some respects is not suitable for discussion during this set of estimates -- and I respect that. The only point I was trying to make is that the lawsuit does imply commitment broken on the part of the Crown, and therefore there is an assumption by the plaintiff in this case that damages might be due because of that lack of consultation. That was the reason for the questions related to interim measures.
[11:30]
Perhaps I can just shift the discussion briefly towards the interim measures themselves, particularly the 25 the minister mentioned that refer to land and resources. Clearly, there appears to be a great deal of confusion out there about the interim measures agreements on the part of communities in the province. I just wondered whether during this set of estimates the minister has committed some communications or community relations program -- community meetings, town hall meetings, whichever -- that would really help communities clarify a whole range of issues under interim measures, such as allocation of game and issues that really seem to be causing a great deal of concern and confusion out there among local governments, guide-outfitters and others who rely on access to Crown land for their livelihoods.
Clearly, if the government makes a commitment every year to do a prebudget consultation to explain a so-called balanced budget in the province, one would hope that given the potential impact of these agreements in British Columbia, some effort would be made by the ministry to deal with the communities in a more objective manner. Can we anticipate during the coming year a stepped-up effort by the ministry to hold community meetings specifically to explain what impact the interim measures might have on their specific regions?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. In preparing our budget for this year, we have prepared to do exactly that and continue to increase the efforts toward community consultation, public forums, public meetings and opportunities to be present with those who have very legitimate concerns they want to ask questions about. We see this happening.... We went through quite a thorough discussion yesterday about the way in which openness is being addressed, which is one aspect of that. The hon. member is correct; it's very important that every effort be made to consult effectively with the public and to ensure that there is the opportunity to explain our position, how we are fulfilling our Delgamuukw requirements -- and also to be able to answer those questions that people would understandably have where they may, for whatever reason, feel that their rights and interests might be affected. So the answer is, very clearly, yes.
W. Hurd: With respect to the interim measures agreements that refer to land and resources -- the 25.... Can the minister tell us, then, how many town hall meetings might be planned -- how many community-based initiatives might be underway in those 25 to explain to the people of those regions exactly what the Crown's rights and responsibilities might be, what rights the band would have, and what opportunity there would be for the communities to provide input to the minis-
[ Page 13972 ]
ter? I think there's a vacuum here in the province of British Columbia, a major vacuum, and I didn't hear any specific commitments from the minister about actual meetings or actual initiatives that might be underway to fill the vacuum.
Hon. J. Cashore: The openness principles that we have made public and that have been made available apply to interim measures. All of those principles must be fulfilled. The 25 that I referred to are the interim measures that have been negotiated and are currently in place. We are in the process of negotiating further interim measures. In those contexts, 34 are under negotiation at the present time. In those instances, the openness principles completely apply, and therefore there needs to be a very clear and intentional process of public meetings, public information, consultation with third parties and so forth. Yesterday I read into the record quite an exhaustive list of consultations that have taken place throughout the province over a wide variety of issues. I think it's very, very clear that we have put in place the capacity to be out there in the context of public meetings, informative events, cable television, townhall meetings and all of those kinds of activities that the hon. member was referring to.
A. Warnke: I want to extend thanks to both the minister and my colleague from Surrey-White Rock, who put forward a number of questions that I believe help clarify the issue, especially as it applies to interim measures agreements. It allows me to address a number of issues. I share with the minister a statement he made a little while ago that it is unfortunate that there is a significant group of politicians called Reformers who have been putting out an agenda, and I think it's worthwhile to explore some of the concepts. I won't speak for them; if anything, I would criticize them. Nonetheless, it's one of these situations where some aspects of the land claims issue that are being put out there need some clarification.
I'm going to take the liberty of referring to the statement made by Member of Parliament Mike Scott yesterday, which I think pretty well summarizes a certain point of view in this province but which needs some clarification within the chamber itself. The reason I would like to explore this is that it has some direct impact on what this government has to do, what it faces, what we as an opposition have to face and what the ministry in its deliberation on its administrative and financial duties has to do in the coming year. There's a view that compensation....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Wrap it up? Thank you, hon. Chair. I like being guided once in a while. Perhaps I'll just make a quick summation that some of the comments that have been put forward, the Reform ideas about compensation toward individuals rather than to groups, and some of the notions of equality just do not fit the resolution that we need on a number of these issues. Perhaps in some other forum, or later on this afternoon, we could take that up.
Seeing the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
G. Janssen: I remind all members and staff of the Legislature that on this bright, sunny day, the annual MLAs' motorcycle ride is taking place in the front of the buildings. I understand the Speaker is also joining us. I ask them all to meet us out front for a little break from the business of the day.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:41 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
On vote 44: minister's office, $360,624.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I actually have a rather extensive introductory presentation, for a couple of reasons: one, we're really proud of the stuff we're doing, and we want to share that with the opposition; in addition to that, we want the opportunity to put on record a bit of the history of the last year, because we feel that the creation of our ministry deserves that note. So let me proceed.
First of all, let me begin by saying that I'd like to give a copy of the ministry's business plan to the opposition. The business plan sets out the results we achieved in 1994-95 and the strategic direction we will take into the next fiscal year.
[10:15]
I'd also like to introduce the staff who are with me today: Cassie Doyle, our deputy minister; Fern Jeffries, ADM of the policy, planning and legislation division; Jacquie Rice, ADM of consumer and corporate services; and Saul Schubert, manager of the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Saul is the only male among us, in case there is a need to identify that. These four people are part of the team of 260 ministry and 337 B.C. Housing staff who are dedicated to ensuring our Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services clients in British Columbia are well served.
As you know, the ministry has a mandate for protecting and increasing the supply of adequate and affordable housing, enhancing recreation opportunities in the province and improving access to recreation services, ensuring fairness for consumers in the marketplace and ensuring a level playing field for cooperatives in the public and private sector.
[ Page 13973 ]
Last year I said my vision was grounded in the commitment to provide leadership. Today I am pleased to tell you we have demonstrated that leadership. We have established innovative partnerships, improved access to service, obtained input and advice from community advocates, and advocated on behalf of British Columbians. Our commitment to partnership, access and advocacy recognizes the experience and expertise existing in communities and acknowledges that an inclusive approach is critical to achieving our mutual goals.
The changing work environment demands renewed workplace partnerships between ministry management and union employees to tap the considerable expertise of everyone within the ministry. I would also like to acknowledge the critical importance of involving staff at all levels of our work. This inclusive approach within the ministry has generated some impressive results. I am pleased to announce the results of the first government workplace partnerships which were driven by my staff at the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program.
As part of our service delivery and commitment to partnership renewal in the public service, a workplace review was undertaken by SAFER staff. A union/management partnership committee examined a number of workplace processes to streamline decision-making, identify redundant work practices and consider more appropriate delegation of authority. Staff approached this task from a client's point of view as well as from an internal perspective. They asked themselves how they could build a better workplace and how they could improve the service to their clients.
As a result of that review, 42 steps in the application and reapplication process were eliminated because of more effective collaboration between those who direct the program and those who deliver it. In turn, a backlog was eliminated and a revitalized SAFER staff can now deliver timely quality service to senior citizen clients.
As well as leading from within, we have demonstrated our leadership commitment to providing appropriate and affordable housing to those British Columbians who need housing support from this government. The high cost of land, and continued high numbers of people moving to B.C. from Canadian provinces and from other countries, are factors which influence the supply of affordable housing. Vancouver and Victoria remain the least-affordable cities for first-time home buyers in Canada. B.C.'s urban vacancy rate is half that of the rest of Canada.
As well as severe housing market conditions, we are facing an increased need for shelter for individuals suffering from HIV or AIDS. The number of people who are homeless or at risk of becoming so -- some with mental illnesses or drug and alcohol dependencies -- are also on the rise. We've seen an increase in the numbers of youth living on the streets, including sexually exploited children. Women and children attempting to leave abusive home situations need access to both transitional and permanent housing.
The continued failure of the federal Liberal government to renew its funding commitment to social housing is causing serious repercussions for British Columbians. Our leadership will help stretch limited resources to provide creative and innovative housing solutions. However, it's fair to say that with the loss of two-thirds of the dollars for new social housing, we cannot entirely fill the gap.
In line with these challenges, last June we launched the major component of our provincial housing strategy, Homes B.C. This is the first comprehensive provincial housing program to provide a range of options so that the community can develop local housing solutions. Through our 1994 call for expressions of interest, we expect to build nearly 1,000 social housing units to provide affordable and appropriate housing and strengthen the lives of low-income families, seniors and individuals who are homeless or at risk of becoming so. We're building community skills to solve local housing problems through our community housing initiatives, an element which supports education and advocacy on issues related to housing affordability.
I'm pleased to report that through this program we've funded 56 projects covering a wide range of activities. Some of these address the factors I mentioned earlier; others look at housing issues faced by new Canadians and communities just beginning to deal with their housing problems. For example, we've funded the Atira Transition House Society to conduct a provincewide assessment of the needs of specialized transition houses for women who have drug and alcohol dependencies. This society also completed a model to help develop this resource throughout the province.
We funded the Progressive Inter-cultural Community Services Society to identify the housing needs of new Canadians, single mothers, farmworkers and people with disabilities. The work of the Bulkley Valley Housing Society was funded to help sponsor a northern housing forum, which will support information-sharing about affordable housing in northern B.C.
Homes B.C. has a unique element which helps moderate-income renters bridge the gap to home ownership. The new options for home ownership will provide a pool of affordable, limited-equity ownership housing, allowing us to stretch our housing dollars and free up social housing units for low-income renters.
In addition to Homes B.C., our made-in-B.C. housing strategy focuses on promoting local government involvement in addressing affordable housing needs in their communities. This is a key partnership because of the important role local government plays in the development process. In February, my ministry co-hosted a housing conference with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to encourage the understanding of affordable housing as an integral part of the community. The conference brought together local government housing advocates and our non-profit and cooperative housing partners to discuss various approaches and strategies to promote local responses to local needs.
We will continue to give local government the tools they need to address community housing needs. This year we will develop a model housing agreement, a standard of maintenance bylaw and a guide to land leases. This will support last year's enabling legislation, allowing local government to lease or sell land below market value to non-profit housing.
Just last week, we concluded several months of cooperative effort with the district of Squamish to stop an attempt by a non-profit housing cooperative to privatize its housing units. This cooperative has received over $1.5 million in public funds to provide non-profit cooperative housing for the long-term benefit of those British Columbians who need housing assistance. Given the short supply of affordable housing, it was imperative that we act quickly, and we did so. We have put in place measures to prevent the loss of this valuable affordable housing stock and to prevent the public asset from reverting to private ownership and personal gain.
[ Page 13974 ]
Our housing strategy includes building effective partnerships with the real estate, construction and business communities. For example, in partnership with the Canadian Home Builders' Association of B.C., we intend to focus our efforts on addressing barriers to affordable housing on new homes in B.C. Recent attempts to gold-plate standards requiring sprinklers and other extras, which add to the cost of new homes, is an issue that concerns us both. A significant component of our housing strategy in 1995-96 will promote affordable housing as an important part of the overall community.
To assist these efforts, I have struck a special task group to help guide our work to improve housing situations for lower-income, urban singles, particularly those living in single-room-occupancy hotels. As well, through my housing advisory council, we will encourage broad-based consultation to find workable and affordable options to see that secondary suites become another viable housing solution for families. Our consultation will include homeowners and renters as well as local governments, the real estate and building industry, and community housing organizations.
Along with its ongoing work in managing the province's social housing stock, the B.C. Housing Management Commission will involve its tenants in decisions affecting their housing and support solutions to other community issues. The B.C. Housing board and other community housing advocates have emphasized the detrimental impact of a not-in-my-back-yard, or NIMBY, syndrome that plagues the development of new, affordable and special needs housing. Judy Villeneuve, a B.C. Housing board member, Surrey councillor and member of my housing advisory council, heads our NIMBY task force. Her task group is steering a project that will look at questions like: does non-market housing have an effect on neighbouring property values, and what are the solutions for dealing with NIMBY?
We know that one of the solutions is better information and education, so task groups will help lead the development of materials for use by local governments and affordable housing advocates. Inclusive communities are a priority, not only for housing but also for recreation. As Minister of Recreation, I am continuing to implement a strategic plan that is being developed in conjunction with the recreation community itself. We said our inclusive approach would involve recreation partners to ensure fair, equitable and accessible services. Our cooperative work with this sector has resulted in our More Than an Open Door initiative: a series of resource packages for recreation providers. The first package focused on gender equity and was released in November 1994. In 1995 we will focus on disability issues. We are working with our recreation partners to find accessible and appropriate opportunities for youth to get more physically active.
Let me take this opportunity to talk about a very significant partner that we're working with, not only on recreation but on other issues in the ministry -- in particular, the issues of housing young people. In dealing with a number of issues -- and I'll start with the issue of recreation -- we've had an opportunity to meet with youth organizations and hear from young people about the issues that are important to them. Specifically for recreation, we heard from young people in the north about how difficult it is to meet their recreation needs and about their inability, in many communities to simply get together in safe and constructive places.
I recall, in particular, a young woman talking about how the only places that were available in her community were billiard parlours. You can well imagine that billiard parlours are not particularly safe or constructive places for young people to be. So the message that they were delivering to their local councils and their recreation commissions was that in developing recreation plans, youth should be involved. Our ministry will support their involvement not only to find constructive things to do with their time but to meet their needs as youth in a community in getting together in safe places.
[10:30]
The literature shows us that physical fitness is positively related to the development of positive self-concept. When recreation is used in intervention programs, self-esteem increases, and the sense of belonging to a community and to society is greatly enhanced. Our challenge is to provide positive and relevant recreation alternatives to meet youth on their own ground. My colleagues from across Canada are facing similar challenges. Some of the physical activity facts shared by the counterparts include the following statistics: children and youth need 30 minutes of physical activity every day to improve fitness and health levels, yet 90 percent of Canadian children don't even get that; as a result of their inactivity, 27 percent of males and 43 percent of females age 15 to 19 have increased health risk associated with excess body fat; girls, in particular, who are active in sports are 92 percent less likely to use drugs and 80 percent less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy; and in America, studies conducted between 1983 and 1989 show that regular physical activity by women under 40 was a significant factor in reducing breast cancer. So the health benefits to more physical activity in communities are significant.
As a ministry, that's one of the messages we're taking to communities, particularly at a time when this government's active initiative to reform the health system is causing such a positive debate in communities throughout the province. For example, a 10 percent increase in the number of regularly active Canadians between 1981 and 1991 resulted in an estimated $3.4 billion savings in health care costs during that period. Clearly the link that active living builds healthy individuals and healthy communities is an important component of our recreation programs.
Our ministry sponsors the Premier's sports award program. This program promotes physical activity in the 8-to-13-year-old age groups and supports programs for nearly 80,000 children in schools and recreation centres throughout the province.
It is apparent that we need to continue our support to small rural and remote communities. In 1995-96, we will provide 150 small communities, including 20 aboriginal communities, with recreation administration grants to help them deliver recreation opportunities.
Our successful outdoor leadership program for aboriginal youth gives these young people leadership skills, training and work experience which lead to meaningful work and change in their communities and in their lives.
Turning now to my Consumer Services portfolio, as part of our leadership commitment, we have strengthened the rights of consumers to promote fairness and access in the marketplace.
One of the things that has really hit home since taking on this portfolio is that the marketplace is not static. New technologies and financing methods are changing the way that
[ Page 13975 ]
business is conducted, and consumers need high-quality information and appropriate protection. We are seeing a growing trend in complaints to government about new forms of ownership, such as consecutive leasing, fractional interest and time-shares in real property. Aggressive new marketing techniques that accompany these trends present continuing challenges for regulatory agencies charged with protecting consumers. In the last five years we have seen consumer complaints and inquiries in the ministry nearly double, from 30,000 in 1990-91 to nearly 60,000 in 1994-95.
The Ministry of Consumer Services has actively represented British Columbians in the marketplace. Perhaps some of our most public actions have been in representing consumer interests and introducing bold new protections that respond to the changing marketplace. We have responded to B.C.'s cable subscribers, who were outraged over negative marketing attempts. This prompted new legislation, which will be introduced this session, to protect consumers and ensure that they only pay for services that they have expressly ordered.
Our consumer advocacy in 1994-95 also includes establishing effective processes for homeowners impacted by the failure of certain Flexwatt radiant ceiling heating panels.
As well as responding to new marketplace trends, we have put in place a process of active investigation into shoddy and deceptive business practices. As a result, I'm pleased to report a 13 percent increase in the number of investigations conducted by Consumer Services. At the same time, our requirement that direct sellers be registered and wear photo ID has actually reduced consumer complaints about door-to-door sellers by about 20 percent in the past year.
In 1994-95, we helped obtain restitution or other forms of redress worth $800,000 for some 791 consumers. In one case, investigators obtained a full refund of $23,500 for a car buyer who found out that the seller had misrepresented the mileage on the vehicle. Another case saw a consumer refunded nearly $7,000 because of the fact that she purchased a rebuilt Mazda in poor mechanical condition, which was not disclosed. Just recently, a home renovator in Grand Forks was given the maximum sentence of one year in jail for deliberately overcharging an elderly citizen.
We've introduced vanguard consumer protection legislation which will be used as a model for other jurisdictions. For example, our new vehicle leasing regulations require plain-language disclosure for all leasing costs to consumers and require a one-day cooling-off period. Motor vehicle buyers will have increased protection from the newly established industry financing compensation fund. As well as added consumer protection, this fund supports business by encouraging consumers to buy from licensed rather than unlicensed motor vehicle dealers.
Another marketplace trend we face is a tremendous growth in consumer debt in Canada, and British Columbia, and the concurrent growth in consumers with debt concerns. Growing numbers of people require advice and assistance in repaying their debts and in protecting their family assets, including their homes, jobs and family stability. As of February 1995, client interviews with the debtors assistance branch were up 25 percent compared to the same period last year. Over the past fiscal year, the branch has assisted some 2,200 British Columbians in meeting their financial obligations through the orderly payment of debt program.
In addition to stabilizing families and individuals facing difficult financial circumstances, the branch helped avoid approximately 13,000 potential court proceedings and returned some $6 million over the past year to small businesses and creditors in B.C. A levy on of these funds added about $600,00 to our revenue. This not only pays for the entirely orderly payment of debt program but it also offsets administrative costs incurred under the Debtor Assistance Act, the Debt Collection Act and the Credit Reporting Act.
In strengthening consumer awareness about appropriate debt collection practices, the branch released revised guidelines to the debt collection and bailiff industry. In just over one month, complaints about unreasonable debt collection practices have sharply declined. The ministry has provided fairness for business and has achieved a first in North America by proclaiming legislation that gives small businesses the same right of access to their credit files as is enjoyed by consumers. Now businesses, as well as consumers, can find out what is being said about them with respect to their credit file.
In 1995-96, consumer investigators will seek out deceptive and improper business practices and immediately alert consumers through appropriate communication measures.
Our registrar of travel services will step up inspections to ensure that 1,100 registered travel agents in the province are complying with the law. We will proclaim legislation to regulate and license funeral professions and funeral service providers to protect consumers when they are particularly vulnerable.
Adapting to the demands of a changing rental housing market has been and will continue to be a particular consumer protection effort. We are seeing more and more landlords with only one or two rental suites, particularly with the increased supply of new rental units through secondary suites and investor condominiums.
Improvements to the Residental Tenancy Act have recently been implemented to address concerns raised by tenants and landlords around the province. We improved access to support B.C.'s 450,000 rental households and 200,000 landlords, and we have updated the act to support improved business practices and improved communication between landlords and tenants. Tenants and landlords now benefit from new on-the-ground services in Prince George, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Surrey and Vancouver. Our Kamloops office will open soon. As well, we have established an expanded role which allows our staff to be more proactive in helping landlords and tenants resolve disputes before they escalate to arbitration.
We improved consumer protection in the rental housing market so that tenants can now seek a third-party review for unjustifiable rental increases. New protection is also in place to help tenants deal with emergency and regular repairs, discrimination and unlawful entry, and to support landlords in combatting deliberate damage by tenants. I'm sure that members will have a number of questions about these areas.
Let me touch on the issue of our responsibility for cooperatives. There are some 487 registered cooperatives and 331 credit union branches in B.C. with about two million members. Cooperative assets total $14.5 billion and make a significant contribution to community economic development.
[ Page 13976 ]
We have funded several innovative groups, including the Nanaimo Cooperative Community Health Centre working group, to prepare a model for cooperative health care.
Not wanting to miss some of the very innovative projects, let me put on record that we will be developing in the next year the Cowichan Lake Community Forest Cooperative, as well as the aboriginal marketing cooperative model.
As you can see, there are a number of very exciting initiatives underway in the ministry. For such a small ministry, we are having a significant impact both in the marketplace, in housing, in consumer services and in building communities generally.
J. Dalton: I thank the minister for her very extensive overview of her ministry, which, of course, is an interesting one because it has so many varieties within it. As well, I did have a copy of the business plan that her ministry put together before we got here today. It was certainly helpful to look both at the items the ministry has covered over the past year and, of course, the vision they expressed in the latter part of this document, which perhaps this government will have time to implement. We'll have to see, of course.
Other people will be asking questions on housing, recreation and other aspects, but I want to touch on some of the consumer protection areas; the major one would probably be the Residential Tenancy Act. It is certainly a topic that naturally causes some controversy. That would be true under any government and under any legislation.
The minister pointed out to us that there are approximately 450,000 tenants in this province and 200,000 landlords. Needless to say, given the volume of both tenants and landlords, there will be disputes. It's interesting to look back over the years with regard to tenancy legislation. I have to applaud the previous NDP government; I won't necessarily applaud this one. We will all recall that the previous NDP government, under Dave Barrett, brought in the rentalsman's office and made very significant changes to landlord-tenant relations.
Prior to 1974, when that legislation came in, I think it's safe to say that landlord-tenant relationships certainly were somewhat unregulated. Needless to say, over the years more pressure was brought on governments to bring in legislation which would address the concerns between landlords and tenants.
[10:45]
Recently new changes have been implemented to the Residential Tenancy Act. In the ministry brochure that advertises -- if that's the way to describe it -- the Residential Tenancy Act, the minister talks about fair treatment in the rental housing market and the consultation process which began in early 1994 and continued through last year, when, of course, we brought in some amendments to the act. Those amendments were implemented in February 1995.
There has been some criticism, and I'm sure that the minister will be aware of some of it. For example, a letter was written to the minister of February 17, 1995, by the chair of the Rental Housing Council of B.C. He expressed some concern which I want to put on the record, and then we'll get the minister's reaction. He expressed some concern about what I would say flies in the face of this consultation process that the ministry describes. Certainly this letter is somewhat critical of the fact that even though there might have been a pro forma consultation, the bottom line is that things were brought into law and implemented, which the Rental Housing Council is not happy with -- to put in mildly.
In one part of this letter, for what it's worth, the chair accuses the ministry of acting in bad faith. I think what this gentleman and many others that we hear from are alluding to is that this government very often goes through the motions of consultation with people and groups, and then, of course, the bottom line is that it goes ahead and enacts legislation and provisions as it pleases.
I don't quarrel with the government for following its own agenda; any government has to do that. But I do take issue -- and I use this letter as one example -- with a government that goes through the motions of consultation and then truly does not carry it out. I think that will certainly be reflected over the next months, and perhaps years, as we see how the new provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act are carried out -- in particular, the rent overview provisions. I think they are going to cause the most difficulty in this new legislation.
Let me look at some of the issues that the Rental Housing Council has addressed in this letter, and then we can see whether these complaints have any validity. This letter talks about what I think we would all like as an objective. Any new laws or regulations under such an important piece of legislation as the Residential Tenancy Act would be brought in with proper consultation so that all sides will be properly heard and represented, and then put into effect.
The chair writes that he would like to have seen consultation in a manner that would be effective but least disruptive to the tenants and owners of rental property in the province. It's his opinion -- and he certainly is not the only one who's expressed this opinion -- that some of the recent amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act have not met that objective, in particular -- this won't be a surprise to the minister, I'm sure -- the concern expressed about rent protection. Quite frankly, I think that even though we would all like to see the playing field levelled so that both landlords and tenants share the same opportunities to express concerns and have those properly dealt with, what's happened is that the playing field is no longer level. It's been tipped in favour of tenants. I would say that is the philosophy of this government as well.
Again, I remind the committee, if we cast our minds back to 1974, I think the previous NDP government did quite a good job in trying to level that playing field. I think this government has perhaps overextended itself on one side of the equation and has ignored the other side. One concern, for example, that the chair of the housing council raises in this letter -- and perhaps the minister could respond to this -- is that the minister gave assurances that the matter of mortgage interest on rental properties would be addressed, and it has been ignored. Is that an accurate statement?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member touched on a number of issues; let me try to respond. First of all, with regard to the comment about the work of our previous government with the rentalsman's office, perhaps the member can help me by indicating whether he is suggesting that we would have had rent controls rather than a rent protection system in this province, with these rounds of changes. In focusing on the rentalsman, the member seems to be indicating that it is a rent control model that he supports. In which case, let me address that and our thinking during the consultation process that was underway in developing the legislation.
[ Page 13977 ]
In putting a rent control system in place, the government would have had to invest significantly in an administrative infrastructure in the bureaucracy. In looking at other models, it would have found itself in the situation of setting what is purported to a be rent ceiling, but in reality becomes a rent floor, and in our view that does not serve tenants well. We instead chose a more targeted system that dealt with unjustifiable rent increases or rent-gouging. We very consciously made the decision not to spend taxpayers' dollars on putting an expensive system in place that would have required a full registry of all units in the province. I would be very interested to hear what the Liberals have to say about their position on that front.
Secondly, the member comments that the changes that we have brought in seem to be tipped in favour of tenants. If the member is conversant with the existing legislation, keep in mind that the previous government abolished the rentalsman's office and brought in changes to the Residential Tenancy Act, which at that time were widely held to be weighted in favour of landlords and to the detriment of tenants. I would put to you that the amendments in Bill 50 simply brought back a balance. As an example, for the first time since the abolishment of the rentalsman's office in this province, tenants have an independent third party to hear their concerns with regard to unjustifiable rent increases. Until those changes, there was no avenue open for tenants. Surely the member wouldn't suggest that that was fair.
With regard to emergency repairs and ongoing repairs, likewise those are changes that brought back balance to the legislation and gave tenants an opportunity.... The member may suggest that by focusing on those issues we were disproportionately supporting tenants. But if the member is conversant with the previous legislation, he would be well aware that it was not balanced and did not support tenants, therefore those changes have been very well received.
With regard to the issue of consultation and the rental council letter, let me say that the rental council, as well as other landlords' organizations, has been and continues to be involved in policy development and implementation in both drafting the legislation and putting up the new system. What we see here is an issue where the rental council, even though it had extensive opportunity for input, simply disagrees with the decision made. It's not an issue of consultation. It is an issue where the rental council believes that the government should not bring that balance back to the legislation, and that there was no need for an independent third body to hear renters' concerns with regard to rent-gouging.
On the issue of interest rates, again it is unfortunate that the member has that particular letter and that the rental council has not shared with him my response to that letter. If the member will note on the rental council letter, the rental council copied that letter to the Vancouver Sun, the Province, BCTV and CKNW. This is more about a campaign than it is a genuine discussion of issues. My response to the Rental Housing Council letter clearly pointed out that interest rates are included in the formula developed and is used by the arbitrators in making decisions. Once a rental issue or a rent increase issue is before an arbitrator -- and it is only at that time the formula is used -- we have actively encouraged landlords and tenants to work those issues out before an arbitrator becomes involved.
J. Dalton: I appreciate the minister's response to that concern in the letter. Obviously she had to respond to some rather interesting, perhaps even serious, allegations or concerns expressed. I recognize that this letter was copied to the media. But on the other hand, I think it's fair game to publicize the concerns of the rental council, because, after all, we can deal with this at one level in the Legislature. But I think it is more important that the public have the opportunity as well for these concerns to be voiced and vetted so that it can make up its own mind as to whether the playing field has in fact been levelled.
We'll return to this in a moment. I wanted to make a couple of comments.... Even though this perhaps isn't the time whereby Liberal policy has to be publicized, I can assure the hon. minister that the Liberal caucus would in no way endorse rent control. Rent control is, I would say, even more horrific than the rent protection that we see in the current provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act. In fact, the other day the member for Delta South, if I recall correctly, was expressing -- even though he was dealing with another bill -- the same concern about rent control. Over the years, I think any experience in any jurisdiction has seen that it doesn't work. Again, we have to remind ourselves that what we're trying to do is seek as objective and level a process as is appropriate.
The minister has also cast her mind back to the previous government, and I wouldn't quarrel with her comment. I would say it's a fair comment to say that the Socreds certainly created their own imbalance. Of course, that is a political philosophy that was reflected at the time.
I want to remind the committee again, however, that I've congratulated the previous NDP for the initial legislation in the area of residential tenancy provisions and in particular the rentalsman. I think, in a way, that it was regrettable that the rentalsman's office was eliminated. I think the rentalsman, at the time, brought that objectivity and gave both landlords and tenants the avenue, and an office, to go to in order to deal with issues in an objective manner and in a fairly speedy manner. I know we have third-party arbitration, and the minister commented on that. However, we cannot return to the old days. We have to carry on and see how these things will work out under the current system.
[11:00]
Another problem has been drawn to my attention about the rent protection provisions, and the minister could comment as to whether this is an accurate statement. A West Vancouver landlord has drawn to my attention that under this new rent protection formula, management expenses of landlords will not be allowed beyond 2.5 percent. Is that the correct figure? Is that part of the formula that we would be working through when rent protection is implemented?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This gives me an opportunity to make the member more familiar with the process that has been put in place. During the consultation, both landlords and tenants agreed that the majority of landlords and tenants have good relationships and that they conduct their business fairly. Both landlords and tenants went on further to indicate that any system that we put in place should be a system that discouraged frivolous complaints. So the system that was put in place with regard to the Bill 50 amendments puts in place a process that encourages good communication between landlords and tenants from the initial contact. We have required a landlord to notify a tenant of the rent increase and put in
[ Page 13978 ]
general terms the reason for that rent increase. At that point, the tenant has 30 days to make a decision as to whether he or she will proceed to request an arbitration.
There is significant support during those 30 days. Tenants, in contacting the residential tenancy branch and an information officer, are provided with information as to how the system works, their rights and their responsibilities. They might also receive guidance with regard to the average rent increase in their particular community. If a tenant then requests an information officer to call a landlord and provide the same information to that landlord, the information officer will do that. So in the length of time since the legislation has been proclaimed, we have been monitoring both the retroactivity and the ongoing.... We have seen, through the number of inquiries and the actual arbitrations, that the system is working. There are very few arbitrations -- very few times when people have to proceed to ask that an independent third party sit down and look at the rent increase or other issues dealing with the changes to Bill 50. So when the member asks about the formula, that question has to be in the perspective that the formula is only used during the arbitration.
Let me share with the member some of our experiences with the Bill 50 changes. Since the proclamation -- from February 10 through to April 26.... I want to emphasize for the member that that includes the provision for retroactivity. If the member remembers, when we started the consultation for Bill 50, we indicated that the legislation would be retroactive to that date, which was December 1993. So these numbers deal with not only the actual cases generated between February and April of this year, but also the full retroactive period, in catching up with the legislation.
In that time period, the Bill 50 files total 183. I want to put that into some context. The average arbitrations for a month are approximately 1,800. So if you juxtapose the Bill 50 arbitrations including retroactivity, 183 are in that time period. Of the 183, 7 percent dealt with the change of locks, 1.6 percent with the right to assign or sublet, 14.7 percent with claims for return of personal property and 76.5 percent are for rent protection. In other words, 140 of the 183 were to deal with actual rent protection.
For rent protection in Bill 50, let me give you an indicator. And again, I want to emphasize that the legislation was designed to deal with rent-gouging, not to review each and every rent increase in the province. Of the 140, six dealt with rent increases between zero and 5 percent. That's the average rent increase that we're seeing in the province now -- between 3 and 5 percent. So in six files people felt that even in that average catchment of rent increase there was some extraordinary exception. The arguments would go something like: "My landlord doesn't deserve even a 3 percent rent increase because he has let this place run into the ground, he has not invested and he has not lived up to his responsibility."
The statistics are particularly interesting when you look at the rest of the case files: 27 of the case files, or 19 percent, were increases between 5 and 10 percent; 25 percent of the case files dealt with increases between 10 and 15 percent; 14 percent dealt with cases dealing with a 15 to 20 percent rent increase; and 14 percent dealt with increases between 20 and 30 percent. There were four cases between 30 and 40 percent, and there was one dealing with an increase of over 40 percent. So I want to make the point that by doing an evaluation of the retroactivity and the existing case file, the reality is that the system's working. It's dealing specifically with rent-gouging. It is not interfering or involving itself as a system in the average rent increase.
As we have said from day one, those with good relationships with their tenants and those that are conducting their business in a responsible fashion need not concern themselves. Indeed, they have seen positive support from the enhancements we have brought in. Quite frankly, we are very pleased by the response we have received from both landlords and tenants, in particular with the new office openings outside the lower mainland. Landlords are particularly pleased with the support that we are giving them in managing their businesses.
J. Dalton: I thank the minister for those detailed statistics on the arbitration profile, because obviously we all have to see how the experience will work out over time. I appreciate that the vast majority of those cases are on the rent protection aspect, which was to be expected.
One point that the minister made -- and I wanted to ask about it later anyway, so I'll bring it up right now -- was that of the 183 files, 7 percent dealt with changes in locks. That, of course, can be a controversial issue in itself. I note in the brochure which advertises the new changes to the Residential Tenancy Act that in an arbitration -- if it gets that far -- dealing with unlawful entry and the change-of-locks issue, an arbitrator has the authority to allow the tenant to change the locks and keep the only keys, if he or she chooses to exercise it.
I'm a little disturbed by that. I appreciate that tenants should have every right to privacy and protection from unauthorized entry by landlords or anyone else, and there is no question that some landlords abuse that authority. But I think this might be an example where we're going too far the other way in trying to correct a problem. I think we may going into a dangerous area -- that of overcorrecting it. Has there been any experience where an arbitrator has authorized a tenant to change locks on a unilateral basis? Have there been any complaints generated out of this particular issue?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Again, I'd take the opportunity to point out that the legislation, because it is consumer protection legislation, targets abusers. The only landlords who need to concern themselves are those who break the law. As I've said, without question the vast majority of landlords conduct their business in a responsible fashion and respect the laws of the land. The laws that have been in existence in this province for ten to 15 years indicate that a landlord must give 24 hours' notice and, if a landlord is entering the premises after business hours, must give that notice in written form. The only time that a tenant would seek an arbitrator's ruling is, first and foremost, because the landlord broke the law. So we're dealing with lawbreakers here.
Second, with respect to the changes to Bill 50, this was driven by a concern not only from the coalition led by the YWCA, but by a number of individual women who told real horror stories that impacted on their personal security and their quiet enjoyment of their premises.
Having said that, the arbitrations that we have heard.... Was it seven? We'll get the numbers. There were 13 arbitrations heard with regard to changing the lock, which is 7 percent of the total arbitrations heard with respect to Bill 50.
[ Page 13979 ]
The consequences of those arbitrations after hearing the evidence were either outright denial or no decision at all. The arbitrators to date have not been convinced by the evidence before them to rule in favour of the tenant changing the lock. Again, this is to deal with not only those months, but the retroactivity in the legislation.
[11:15]
As in all of the changes that we brought in, we will monitor the arbitrators' rulings. We will monitor the success in addressing the issues that were put before us from both the landlords' and the tenants' perspectives. In doing that, we will take into consideration the need for future changes.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to enter into the debate here this morning, if we can call it a debate. It's been interesting listening to a member of the Liberal caucus praising the first NDP government, and to the minister sounding, in some respects, like a Liberal this morning.
I assure the minister that I'm not attempting to insult her or use any unparliamentary kinds of techniques. That was actually a compliment.
Hon. J. Smallwood: No, that was an insult.
D. Mitchell: A small-l Liberal, in some respects.
I compliment the minister on her very comprehensive opening statement, because it indicates that she's taking her responsibilities seriously. I'm sure we could probably pass these estimates pretty quickly, although I think there are a number of areas that would be interesting to canvass. One of them is that the minister, as the watchdog for British Columbians on consumer issues, housing issues and recreation matters, must have sources of research within her ministry. There are certainly indicators from outside the ministry in terms of how we can define where affordable housing issues are most pressing in British Columbia. Which consumer complaints really need to be responded to?
I'm wondering if the minister could give the committee a general sense this morning of what sources of research within the ministry are generated on consumer issues, housing issues and recreation issues, and on whether those sources of research are available to the public.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I think it's fair to say that we are a small ministry, considering the rather extensive responsibility for fairness in the marketplace, as well as the leadership provided in non-market housing and recreation. Given the fact that our ministry has actually been in existence now for a full year, we really need to credit the work and the profile that the ministry has been able to obtain in that responsibility. The research and support made available to our policy people is drawn on from the private sector outside government, as well as from other government agencies; CMHC is an example of research that reflects the issues of market affordability for housing in the province and in Canada.
D. Mitchell: Could the minister advise the committee whether her ministry conducts any public opinion research, and whether any public opinion research has been conducted in the last 12 months, whether it be polling data, focus groups or any other kinds of surveys of public opinion on housing, consumer issues or recreational matters? If so, on which specific issues has she conducted any public opinion research?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have not conducted any public polling.
D. Mitchell: I'm surprised at that response. Given the nature of the minister's responsibility, which is to try to serve as the watchdog for consumers in British Columbia, how would you know? Would you read the newspapers to find out what people are concerned about? How would you know where housing needs to be addressed as an issue and what people really feel about the affordability of housing and the affordable housing stock in the province? Given this government's penchant for spending millions of dollars on public opinion research -- sometimes on very questionable matters with taxpayer funds -- I'm surprised. I think this ministry is one where you could easily justify significant public opinion research to determine what the needs of British Columbians are. Is there any specific reason why this minister has an aversion to this kind of research? I would argue that good research makes good policy.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I notice that the member was not in the room for the full introduction.
D. Mitchell: I was listening.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Great. The member will....
D. Mitchell: So much for that argument.
Hon. J. Smallwood: There will be a test later.
In the introduction I identified a number of active cases that different parts of our ministry have been involved with in helping resolve consumer issues, in dealing with debtor's assistance issues and in meeting and working with people in the housing community and our broad stakeholder involvement in that sector. That work on the front lines with the people of this province often helps inform and direct the policy development, as well as our commitment to administering our responsibility with regard to the existing statutes and bringing in changes that are demanded by the number of calls made.
The issue that I would point to is one that was not necessarily on our work agenda at the beginning of the year, but it was squarely put there by consumers with regard to the cable industry and the protection broadly needed in the service sector.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate what the minister is saying. Her ministry must indeed be responsive to emerging issues, and I think that's good. The only danger I would be concerned about in the minister's response is the proverbial squeaky wheel getting the grease. Sometimes the squeaky wheel needs some grease, and there's no doubt about that. But to have objective research as to what the consumer needs are rather than responding only to high-profile complaints, a myriad of other issues would need to be dealt with.
In her opening statement, the minister offered some statistics that were quite interesting, and I'd like to ask her for some further information about them. She referred to the fact that her ministry receives consumer complaints, and she
[ Page 13980 ]
noted that those complaints have more than doubled in the last five years. I believe that's what she said. It was over the past few years, and I think five was the number she mentioned.
I wonder if the minister could comment on why, in her ministry's opinion, consumer complaints to the ministry have doubled over that period of time. In particular, where do these complaints come from? It would be interesting to know the demographics of these complaints. What regions of the province do they come from -- primarily from the lower mainland and Victoria? Or are these complaints coming from the regions of the province? Does the ministry compile any statistical breakdown of these complaints based on gender, region or what have you? It would be interesting to know.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am looking for the actual numbers, but let me do it off the top of my head. Where we have seen a doubling of the complaints from 30,000 to 60,000 in the period the member referred to, in this past year we've seen an increase in complaints by 13 percent, and juxtaposed to that we have seen, by the change in legislation dealing with door-to-door sellers, a decrease of 20 percent in that area. So you can see the 13 percent is offset by that decrease of 20 percent in that particular area. We have some really very hard-working people.
I might say at the same time that we have not seen an increase in resource staffing. The member makes a point of the need for research and policy development in the ministry; I am hoping that what the member is actually saying is that our ministry should have increased resources to carry that out.
D. Mitchell: You bet.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am sure that everyone would be very pleased to see that because, as I said, we are actively looking for ways of supporting our staff. The initiative I mentioned in my introduction, which has been underway and is one particular responsibility of our ministry, shows how we are able, with the existing resources, to work smarter and be more effective in dealing with our responsibilities to the community.
Let me respond to your next question with regard to the types of investigations. Let me say that for the past year the consumer operations have been providing me with information with regard to the types of cases on a regular basis. These are more in-depth than the specific areas. It is particularly interesting to see not only the fact that in the new vehicle area, as an example, there have been 153, but also the in-depth information they give with regard to the types of complaints. I would be happy to share that synopsis with the member.
The total investigations in 1993-94 was 1,823. The vast majority were big-ticket items: home appliances, 136; home renovations, 230; Motor Dealer Act offences, 416; new vehicles, 153; used vehicles, 219. The rest of the complaints concerned auctioneers, pawnbrokers, entertainment and personal services, and others -- including the enhancements in Bill 50 with the Residential Tenancy Act, where consumer services investigators investigated wilful damage and other issues. The majority of those are all under Bill 50 investigations. So as the member can see, the majority are big-ticket items which deal with home furnishings, renovations and vehicles.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that. I would be interested in having a copy of that, as the minister offered. But my question did not deal with the investigations, but with the complaints themselves. I am wondering about the relationship between the two. Could the minister tell the committee what percentage of complaints actually resulted in investigations by the ministry?
As for my initial question about the complaints themselves, does the minister have a breakdown of where the complaints came from, regionally, within the province of British Columbia? It would be interesting to know if they were all coming from the major urban centres or if they were representative of the regions of the province as well.
Hon. J. Smallwood: As an indicator -- and this is a 1994-95 number -- consumer operations took 56,000 phone calls. These are telephone complaints. They would deal with that in a number of different ways, either by providing information about the statutes or, if there was enough information, by proceeding to open an actual investigation file. There were 1,800 investigation files opened. Those are the numbers that I gave you -- the breakdown. As for the regional breakdown of where the complaints come from, we don't have that information here with us, but we'll get that for you.
D. Mitchell: I can assume that the 1,800 investigations that the minister referred to would arise from complaints that come forward, so there would be some kind of relationship there. I would be interested in data on the regional breakdown of those complaints -- the complaints themselves, not the investigations. I don't know if the ministry breaks them down in any other way -- you know, female complainants versus male complainants. It would be interesting to know who is using the services of the ministry. Who is looking to the ministry as the watchdog for themselves as consumers in British Columbia? That would be of some interest, I think.
The minister hasn't commented, though, on why the increase occurred. I would be interested in her analysis as to why complaints themselves have increased so much over the last few years. Is this a reflection on the economy? Is it a reflection of consumer awareness? Is it a reflection on the work that the ministry itself is doing, or does it say something about the economy in British Columbia and the direction that it's turning?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I honestly believe it's the profile that the ministry has gained since the creation of our new ministry. We have very actively provided education, information and consumer alerts. In increasing that profile and that information to consumers, we also have to recognize and complement consumers. Once they feel someone is on their side, they receive that and not only draw on that resource but exercise their collective muscles as well.
[11:30]
D. Mitchell: I wouldn't expect the minister to say otherwise, but I'd be interested....
Interjection.
[ Page 13981 ]
D. Mitchell: The minister in her opening comments also commented on the debtor assistance program and the increased work of that particular program within the ministry. I think she said that the number of clients assisted under this program has increased 25 percent in the past year alone. That's a significant increase. I know we talked about that program in particular last year when the minister's estimates came up for consideration.
I'd be interested in the minister's comments on this specific program. Why the increase, in her opinion? What kind of reflection on British Columbia is the fact that the debtor assistance program has had a 25 percent increase in its clientele? Also, who are they? Where are these debtors coming from? What kind of breakdown, regional or otherwise, do you have on who the clients of the ministry's program are?
Hon. J. Smallwood: This gives me an opportunity to put some statistics on the public record. The consumer debt in Canada has reached $112 billion and is growing at almost twice the rate of the economy. These are Canadian statistics. The per capita incidence of bankruptcy in British Columbia is the lowest of all the higher-populated provinces in Canada. This is due to two factors, one being the good economy and the second being an aggressive debtor assistance program providing options to consumer bankruptcy. That is the importance of our programs. People have an opportunity to deal with their debt responsibly over and above simply declaring bankruptcy.
In comparison with Alberta, it shows that the incidence of bankruptcy in British Columbia in 1992-93 was approximately 75 percent lower per 100,000 population. The final 1994 figures appear to exceed the 1992-93 ones. The program has been very successful in aiding people in facilitating their debt responsibilities and maintaining their personal assets and the stability of their families. The number of debtor assistance clients has increased approximately 32 percent this year, which is 1993-94, from 5,800 to 7,600. The number of consumers interviewed in person and screened was 12,800.
I note that the time for our estimates is quickly running out. I'm hoping the member will pick up the questioning on debtor assistance in the next session, because this is an important area. Because of the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:33 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]