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
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 16
[ Page 13983 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
L. Reid: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the precincts individuals representing the College-Institute Educators' Association of British Columbia: Mr. Ed Lavalle, Mr. Keith Gilley and Kathy Conroy. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to make a very special introduction today that concerns the family of one of the members of our illustrious press gallery. Scott Sutherland is the reporter for Standard Broadcast News, and today his son Bart is here, and also Bart's very, very famous and special grandfather, Edward Jolliffe, who was a member of the Legislature in Ontario. In fact, he was the leader of the CCF from 1941 to 1953 and Leader of the Opposition for seven of those years. He should really be sitting down here with us, I think; maybe we can arrange that after. He represented the riding of York South. He is out here visiting his grandson today. Bart is 12 and attends Saltspring Elementary. Please give them a very warm welcome.
K. Jones: Seated in the gallery today are two representatives of the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists: Rory and Lynda Corneille, from White Rock. I had a great time today being part of their annual legislative ride to raise awareness for motorcycle safety. I'd certainly like to have the House welcome them today.
D. Schreck: In the gallery today are Molly and Yvonne Bain, my friends of many years, formerly of North Vancouver and now of the Sunshine Coast. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.
D. Streifel: In the gallery above us today are some very, very good friends of mine who were over with their motorcycles to take us for a rumble through the neighbourhood. I really enjoyed the ride today. We have Lyle and Diane Pona, and their friends Chuck and Bev Davey. I bid the House make them welcome.
D. Symons: I also have two friends who were here on the motorcycle ride today, although I would suspect that they're not the type that would take part in a rumble. They are Mr. Craig Heale, from Richmond, and Barry Weinbaum, who is a BCCOM computer expert.
D. Mitchell: In the Speaker's gallery today is a good friend of mine who also happens to be the president of my riding association. Would the House please welcome Caroline Meredith from West Vancouver.
D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an introduction. We have some guests of the Speaker visiting us in the precincts today: Mr. Craig McNulty and his wife, Roseanna, and their two boys Sean and James. They're from Victoria and are good friends of the Speaker. As well, Beverli Barnes, the Speaker's daughter, and her friend Yves Leduc are here from Vancouver. I know that all of them had lunch with the Speaker, and I understand that Roseanna also managed to get on the back of a bike with our friends from the motorcycle coalition. I hope everybody will join me in making them welcome.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND NISGA'A LAND CLAIMS
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. [Applause.]
G. Campbell: I appreciate that response from my colleagues, because it gave the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs a chance to get back into his chair.
I would like to address my question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Today British Columbians have been given another glimpse into the province's position in the Nisga'a land claims negotiations. The April 12, 1995, summary of B.C.'s Nisga'a mandate review raises a number of serious concerns that seem to be in conflict with the public statements that this government has made on a number of issues. The people of B.C. have lost confidence in this government's negotiations, because what the NDP are doing in private is so clearly opposite to what they're saying publicly.
The Speaker: Your question.
G. Campbell: The document points out that the government is committed to tabling a detailed proposal in early May. Will the minister commit today to make public the document the government has prepared for negotiations, so that the people of this province can find out what is really going on behind the closed doors of those negotiations?
Hon. J. Cashore: I can't for the life of me understand why the Leader of the Opposition would want me to table a document that he's holding in his hand. That sounds a bit strange to me. But I would certainly be quite happy to comment on any of the items that he finds within that document, because I very much appreciate that we now have an opportunity to talk with some concreteness about substance, given the fact that we have been encumbered by the secrecy clause that the present leader of the Reform Party wrote and signed when he was Minister of Native Affairs.
The Speaker: Supplemental question, hon. member.
G. Campbell: I would hope that the summary of the provincial Nisga'a mandate review dated April 12 is not the document that this government is working from in negotiations that are this important. The question remains to the minister: will he table the detailed negotiation package the government puts forward? The problem the minister has is that he doesn't understand what is happening in British Columbia. People are tired of the secret deals this government has been doing.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. You've placed your question, and preamble is inappropriate after the question.
G. Campbell: I haven't placed my....
[ Page 13984 ]
The Speaker: Order.
G. Campbell: My question is: will the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs guarantee that this government will protect the private property rights of British Columbians across this province, in view of the aboriginal land claims and the position paper that's been presented to the public today, dated April 12?
Hon. J. Cashore: Fee simple land is not on the table. Fee simple land, I repeat, is not on the table. Where there are licences and other activities on Crown land, we will do everything we possibly can to ensure that the interests of those who already have interests will be protected. That is done through consulting with those parties prior to it being discussed at the table.
[2:15]
M. de Jong: Those assurances from the minister ring awfully hollow to thousands of British Columbians. In the Nicola Valley, members of the Upper Nicola Indian band are now blockading lands that have been owned by the Douglas Lake Cattle Co. for over 105 years. They are claiming an aboriginal right to gill-net domestically stocked fish from two lakes located entirely within the Douglas Lake lands. The question to the minister is: has he advised the Upper Nicola Indian band that its claims respecting Minnie and Stony lakes relating exclusively to privately held land are not acceptable and therefore not negotiable? And if he hasn't communicated that to the band, why not?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Minister of Lands may wish to comment on this. We are in the process of receiving the legal information that we need in order to be able to appropriately respond to that issue, dealing with it in the context of the question the hon. member has raised.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The minister knows that confrontation between aboriginal peoples and private land owners in British Columbia continues to break out across the province, leading to more blockades, more arrests and more uncertainty. What is the minister's definition of private property, and when will he finally stand up and aggressively and effectively defend the rights of private property owners across British Columbia?
Hon. J. Cashore: I do not believe that British Columbians appreciate that kind of fearmongering. Unspecified allegations means that the more you repeat the statement, the more it appears to be the truth. The purpose of this Legislative Assembly should be to deal with real situations. When the hon. member refers to blockades, I ask him to look at the history of this province and to recognize that we have been managing this situation appropriately in the context of the Delgamuukw decisions -- which was acknowledged in April by the Supreme Court in its judgment with regard to the Sam Green case, which ended an injunction that had been in place since 1988, and that those companies are now preparing to get back to work. That injunction started because of the uncertainty when the former Social Credit government was in power.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. J. Cashore: The court acknowledged the policies of this government with regard to interim measures as a reason for lifting that injunction.
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal affairs as well. My question also comes from the documents released by the federal Reform Party this morning -- the documents that the Liberals appear to be using as their primary research tool today.
My question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs deals with the issue of fee simple designation for reserve lands. Can the minister tell us why his negotiators refused to grant fee simple title to the McLeod Lake band in their negotiations, resisted the use of fee simple as part of the McLeod Lake settlement, and are now proposing something exactly opposite for the Nisga'a?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member knows full well that the McLeod Lake negotiation is a federal treaty adhesion; it is not under the aegis of the B.C. Treaty Commission. He knows that full well -- and I think this is a mischievous question. He also knows full well that it is the responsibility of the federal government; the province is there because we are maintaining the affirmation of our responsibility for lands and resources. That's why we are there: to protect the interests of the province of British Columbia. He also knows full well that the direction the McLeod Lake decision is taking is supported by the municipalities and those in the district that want to see it settled, because they see the direction this negotiation is going as being economically beneficial for their region.
J. Weisgerber: The minister knows as well as I that his negotiators resisted the application by McLeod Lake for fee simple status; he knows that, I know it, and the negotiators know it.
Also in this document is an indication that the government -- the provincial government, this minister's government -- intends to extend full subsurface rights as part of land claim settlements with the Nisga'a. Can he explain why he wasn't prepared to extend the same subsurface rights to the Doig and Blueberry bands under Treaty 8, and resisted the extension of full subsurface rights under the negotiations with McLeod Lake -- if he is indeed prepared to extend them to the Nisga'a as part of these negotiations?
Hon. J. Cashore: This hon. member, with his experience, doesn't understand that a negotiation on any type of agreement is an array along a spectrum that includes many different topics. It has to be examined as a package. He knows that.
DEADLINE FOR NISGA'A LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT
A. Warnke: I'll try to formulate a question around the information leaked to the Reform Party. The NDP government has given its negotiators an ultimatum to settle the Nisga'a land claims by June 30. It's very clear that this unilateral ultimatum is designed to help the NDP face an election campaign. Indeed, the NDP government is so desperate that they are even abusing the Nisga'a negotiations for crass political
[ Page 13985 ]
gain. My question to the minister is: since the minister has established this deadline of June 30, what happens the day after the ultimatum passes, on July 1?
Hon. J. Cashore: I find the hypocrisy of these parties, the Liberal Party and the Reform Party, federal and provincial....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: Five months ago these parties were saying: "Why isn't the province moving forward with their position more quickly?" They were saying: "Why aren't we coming to a conclusion on this issue?" They were accusing us of not wanting to conclude. Here we have performed the public service of putting a focused position out there before the public. We've done it in such a way that it is now enabling a public dialogue around these important issues. And now they're saying: "We don't want to see it." They can't have it....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The minister concludes.
Hon. J. Cashore: They want to have it both ways, because they're desperate. They're not government, and they don't recognize that when you are government, you have to manage an issue the way we're managing it. Putting this focused position out there is serving the purpose of getting the other parties...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: ...who have gone on for 20 years...
The Speaker: Would the minister please conclude.
Hon. J. Cashore: ...to finally put their position on the table.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I wonder who is really desperate at this particular time. I think it's pretty clear. Call an election and we'll find that out.
The minister cannot have it both ways, because it was that government that stalled for six months and then, all of a sudden, went and put on a deadline of June 30. It is quite clear that the government is playing brinkmanship politics and jeopardizing the Nisga'a negotiations. If that minister wants treaties in British Columbia that are fair, honourable and lasting.... My question to that minister is: what other secret instructions has the minister given his negotiators, which he should now reveal to British Columbians, that could jeopardize the Nisga'a treaty?
Hon. J. Cashore: I can't tell you what a relief it is to now be in a position where we can publicly discuss these issues, because we have been encumbered by the Weisgerber secrecy clause up until now.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: Now this information is out there...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Cashore: ...and we are able to start to talk about these issues.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! On several occasions, members have referred to other members by their proper names, which are improper in the House. Members know that they should refer to them by their constituencies, and I would ask members to please keep that in mind.
COMMERCIAL FISHERY ENTITLEMENT FOR NISGA'A
G. Wilson: This Minister of Aboriginal Affairs knows full well that gill-netting privately stocked fish in a lake was not covered in the Delgamuukw case.
My question is with respect to this document. It suggests that British Columbia is going to support a Nisga'a commercial entitlement outside the treaty, with respect to a commercial fishery in addition to food fish. Can the minister tell us exactly what is meant by the entitlement of a commercial fishery outside a treaty, and where that could be justified in any court ruling anywhere in this country?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I met with the federal minister on Monday. We made it very clear to both Minister Irwin and Minister Tobin that if they want any support from this government on their position with regard to the entrenchment of food fish in a treaty, as a concomitant quid pro quo, we require the entrenchment of conservation, monitoring and enforcement that will mean treaty protection for all the citizens of British Columbia. That's what we require. We require on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia that in that treaty -- legally binding -- the federal government must put many more resources into monitoring and enforcement. That's what that's about, and that's how treaties can benefit all British Columbians.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell concludes question period.
CHILD CARE MONTH IN B.C.
Hon. P. Priddy: It's with great pleasure that I officially proclaim May as Child Care Month in British Columbia. Our
[ Page 13986 ]
government recognizes child care as an investment in workers, and as an essential part of creating new jobs and a skilled workforce. It helps families, it helps communities, and it helps the economy. Child care is one of the biggest worries and greatest barriers to parents wanting to work. Investing in quality child care gives more parents the chance to continue their education, receive training, develop skills and find jobs so they can contribute to the economy of British Columbia. Investing in quality child care also creates jobs in the construction of new facilities as well as in the child care field, and that makes child care an important part of our government's plan for B.C.'s future. We're making affordable investments to ensure a strong and growing economy that works for ordinary British Columbians.
We're investing in child care to increase choices. A special incentive grant helps increase the number and choice of critically needed infant and toddler spaces. Working and learning isn't only from eight to four, Monday to Friday. There are new and unique needs, such as the need for extended-hours care. Another program of ours supports communities in assessing and planning child care for these new and emerging needs. Our child care support programs have been expanded to serve 140 rural and urban areas. This means it's easier for working families to find information about quality child care in their community.
We're also working to make child care more affordable, and give more parents the choice to work and get training. The child care subsidy program has been increased, making child care available to an additional 3,000 children. This means that low-income families of 29,000 children are receiving support to stay in the workforce. As a result of our wage supplement initiative, some centres are telling us that for the first time in years, they have not had to increase fees to families. This means greater affordability for parents.
[2:30]
This government is also committed to taking action on the linkages between child care and the economy. Capital funding has helped create and retain 1,800 child care spaces in schools, hospitals and post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. There are 14 new child care centres open or under construction in colleges and universities throughout this province. This means that child care is more readily available for students wanting to gain new skills for our growing economy. An integral part of the Skills Now training program is to create accessible child care options and to support parents in finding child care, so they can participate in training without worry. This is not just about facts and figures; it's about real families.
Let me give you an example. Funding through the B.C. 21 initiative is helping 20 women in Victoria build a different life for themselves and their children. This project allows women who have never had an opportunity to receive training a chance to learn skills to support themselves and their families. They've received training in basic construction skills, and they're using these new skills to build a women's shelter in downtown Victoria. This would not have been possible for our economy without child care.
In conclusion, child care strengthens our economy, and it is an investment in the skills and talents of British Columbians. I urge all members of the House to show their support for child care throughout May. Let child care givers know that you recognize and value their work. Involve your community in promoting more quality child care choices for families at a cost they can afford. But don't stop there. Make child care one of your priorities every month, because our children and the future health and economy of this province depend upon it.
L. Reid: I am pleased to rise in response to the statement by the Minister of Women's Equality on the designation of May as Child Care Month in British Columbia.
We certainly support the designation of Child Care Month, because we support child care. We support the notion that this is about investing in families. It's not only a women's issue in British Columbia but an issue of society and the community. It's truly about investing in families, and for that, all of us must stand together to ensure that young people in this province have safe and secure child care. There's no question about that.
The reality is that the majority of British Columbia families today require two incomes to survive -- not two incomes as a luxury, but two incomes to survive and support their families. To have those individuals in the workforce without the constant threat of an interruption of child care or simply with the inability to secure child care, to have them at work without two worries hanging over their heads, has to be the goal of any child care program. We want uninterrupted service and we want consistency and uniformity in that service. We believe that's very, very important.
We also understand that child care needs to offer tremendous diversity -- there isn't a magical solution. There must be a number of different options for children with special needs and families who work outside of regular hours; and oftentimes, respite care should be part of the child care option. We often have special needs children who require additional care, and I would like to see these programs continue to offer an outstanding level of care to those particular families, because I believe that is very, very important.
Both the minister and I come to these current roles from a teaching and a child care perspective, from a sense of how important it is to support families, and that is all to the good. It makes perfect sense that this is seen as a family issue, and that we refuse to have this issue marginalized as only a women's issue. I believe we need to move beyond that thinking and go to the broader perspective.
I'll conclude by saying that the best social program in the world is a job, but integral to that is access to reasonable child care so that the worries are not constantly upon you about whether your learning or schooling is being interrupted, or whether your working life has been interrupted by the fact that you're not able to secure reasonable child care. I believe very much that if we're going to have British Columbians continue to have dreams, child care is going to be a part of realizing those working and learning dreams.
The Speaker: For the third party, I recognize the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure for me to stand up and support the minister in her initiative to declare May as Child Care Month. But in doing so, one must reflect on what it is we're doing in order to meet the needs of families and the demands of children. Why is it that in today's society, we're seeing more and more demand for good quality child care positions? The social pressures that we're placing on a young family today in
[ Page 13987 ]
our economy, where we have the highest tax rate of any jurisdiction in Canada, demand that both family members have to go to work in order for a young family to get along. As a society are we really doing the right thing when we put those kinds of pressures on young families that really do drive the need for child care spaces? Are we really doing the right thing when we see 100,000 more welfare recipients out there and more and more demand for social programs? Are we really addressing the problem in society today? Those are some of the questions that we as legislators have to ask ourselves while we reflect on May being Child Care Month.
In my view, we're not succeeding. We're not succeeding in meeting those social demands, because we are continually increasing the spending in this province at all levels of government. We're putting more and more demands on the taxpayer, therefore putting more and more walls, if you will, in front of young families in British Columbia today. I think we should reflect on the policies of the government and the policies of society and the drive that we have to try to correct those problems rather than increase the problems, as I believe we're currently doing.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services, and Committee of Supply in Committee B here in the House for 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: This morning a number of documents related to the Nisga'a land claim were revealed through a press conference in Vancouver. Ironically enough, we just touched on it very briefly yesterday. This morning I made mention of it, in that perhaps it's one area really worth following through on. There is a perception that the Nisga'a agreement, while it is quite different from what we might anticipate in other treaty negotiations, nonetheless has the prospect of setting some sort of precedent in some of the other claims, and seeking some sort of settlement, which, in turn, could have a profound effect on what the ministry will be doing in this coming year.
Therefore I first want to explore the nature and implications of the Nisga'a negotiations. I recognize that there are some aspects of the negotiations that obviously cannot be revealed, because we're in the middle of those negotiations. Nonetheless, I think there are some points -- given some of the documents that have been released -- that maybe we need to seek clarification of, which would go a long way to hopefully alleviating some of the concerns. Maybe it won't, but we'll soon find out.
At the outset, since a statement has been made that the Nisga'a land claim has to come to some sort of resolution in treaty form by June 30, it does beg the question of what happens if, in fact, the June 30 deadline is passed? We could be hopeful that some sort of resolution will occur by June 30 -- something in treaty form that could be brought forward. On the other hand, there was concern when some of the documents were released -- and we discussed this very briefly in question period -- about the province delaying for six months, as some have put it, before proceeding with the Nisga'a discussions. On the other hand, a deadline has now been imposed. There might be a rationalization, and I would like to give the minister an opportunity to clarify the rationale for putting forth such a deadline.
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be summed up in the phrase "cut to the chase." The federal government and the Nisga'a have been negotiating for 20 years. I've had concerns expressed from some MLAs in areas such as Sechelt that we've been accused, just at the very beginning of the process, of taking too long. That's been going on for 20 years in the AIP stage, and the AIP stage in Sechelt is just getting started.
I ask the hon. member to go back to what he and other opposition parties were saying about five months ago. He was saying there has been enough time for the province to be able to come forward with its position. We took that seriously, and the Premier decided to ask for a thorough review of all the topics that have been discussed pursuant to the various mandates that had to be discussed during those many years of negotiations. As a province, we haven't been at that table for 20 years, but we've been there for a significant time.
By putting forward a comprehensive document that indicates the steps we are going to take in seeking to achieve focus, decision and finality, what we have done is to serve the purpose of causing the federal government and the Nisga'a to get to very serious consideration of where they stand on this issue. I do not know how that can be reasonably interpreted in any way other than to serve the purpose of providing a focus that enables decision-making.
[2:45]
We are firm about any dates we've talked about. We've put that out firmly and seriously. Instead of the kind of posturing we're finding in the wake of this information that's coming up, I can tell you that if we saw some real intent to get down and move this forward within a time line that respects the position we've taken in putting this out there, we could make headway. We could make progress.
The other thing that is very worthwhile about this is that it would enable us to go to the table and seek the agreement of the other two parties at that table to agree to override the confidentiality clause and to table the document publicly. I can tell the hon. member that this is what I'm asking for. I want it to be tabled publicly, because I have every confidence that when the public can see this document in its fullness, the public will see that what we have achieved here is a workable solution that bodes well for the future of the province.
Let's not forget that one of the issues we have put on the table -- and I don't see how any political party could disagree with this -- is that we want an end to the section 87 tax exemption. We want to deal with that in a reasonable way, through honourable negotiation -- and we're serious about that.
We believe that when a federal official writes a self-serving federal briefing note in response to our position which clearly indicates that they're backtracking.... All of a sud-
[ Page 13988 ]
den, those federal officials who have been accusing the government of British Columbia of not moving forward quickly enough find themselves in a position of needing to say where they stand. They're saying that they don't want us to be dealing with their issues: fish and taxation. We're saying: "We've been going to public meetings all around the province, and what we've been hearing at these public meetings is that the citizens of British Columbia want to see an end to the tax exemption." So we're taking leadership on that, and that leadership is expressing the wishes of the citizens of British Columbia.
With regard to fish, we're making it very clear that while this is a federal issue, to a major extent, it's very curious that the federal government would indicate in that briefing note that it's not a provincial issue. I can't think of a citizen of British Columbia, either first nation or non-first nation, who is not concerned about the conservation of fish stocks and what is happening to fish stocks.
It's very important to indicate, when we're talking about the Nisga'a, that the Nisga'a have recently received a federal award for their stewardship on the Nass River, and they deserve credit for that. They have partaken in exemplary activities with regard to stewardship of that resource. The discussions that they have been involved in with the various stakeholders in that area have been, to my knowledge, very cordial discussions. There has been a great deal of mutual respect there, and that should be the case.
We are saying that since we have a very fundamental concern for conservation and for the monitoring and enforcement of conservation standards, if there is going to be any support for the entrenchment of the commercial sale of food fish, that will require a quid pro quo: a treaty requirement that defines, in a way that the federal government cannot avoid, that they will put the resources for monitoring and enforcement into place. I can tell you, hon. member, that when I met recently with the federal ministers, I got that assurance.
G. Wilson: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: I want to ask the House to please welcome my son and his friend Sarah, who are here today to listen to and be edified by this enlightening debate on Aboriginal Affairs estimates. Could the House please make them welcome.
A. Warnke: I'm a little bit surprised at a couple of statements by the minister. As a matter of fact, when the minister said that the provincial government is really attempting to put pressure of some sort on the federal government and the Nisga'a first nation and force them to give serious consideration as to the negotiations, he implied that the federal government is not serious. In fact, I've got quite a different impression of the federal government.
The federal government has made it very clear that they're not opposed to expediting the treaty. The minister is quite right; this has been going on for more than 20 years -- 22 years. That's not the federal position. The federal position.... They are not opposed to expediting an agreement, but the federal government has also made it very clear that what they don't like is the threat of some sort of artificial deadline that has been imposed. Indeed, one could make the argument that putting forth an artificial deadline could contribute to the collapse of talks. That's why there is the concern of the people who have released documents. Today, what has shaken the British Columbia public and the British Columbia community is: what are the potential implications of putting forth a deadline?
A second aspect I want to explore with the minister is that the province needs a sufficient period of time to explain to non-aboriginal British Columbians and to other first nations what has been agreed upon. The way the talks are going, by imposing this kind of deadline one wonders whether there is going to be any attempt by this government to explain the implications of the Nisga'a treaty and the settlement to British Columbians. Will there be any opportunity prior to the June 30 deadline? Considering that that's not very far away, my thinking on this is that the opportunity might be there. I could be wrong, and I hope the minister will clarify that. But if it's after the June 30 deadline and if.... I don't want to deal too much in the hypothetical, but if there is an agreement by June 30, then that agreement is not involving people prior to the June 30 deadline. Now it seems that what will be explained is not in any way to seek information, but to just say: "Here it is. This is what's been agreed and accepted. Like it or lump it."
There's another aspect I'd like the minister to comment on. This concerns the perception that the provincial and federal governments are squabbling over the cost of settlement, where the government of Canada is to provide the cash and British Columbia is to provide Crown land, according to an agreement in 1993. Yet there seems to be some question about Ottawa's compensation to British Columbia for lost resource revenues on lands transferred to aboriginal ownership. There is a view expressed that the provincial government is responding by seeking some sort of compensation. But at the same time they are seeking compensation in such a way that it's at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
Perhaps I'll just toss that out, and let the minister to respond to those couple of questions.
Hon. J. Cashore: There are three aspects of that question that I want to comment on. First, the hon. member sounded as though he was being a bit of an apologist for his federal cousins in Ottawa, and he's saying he doesn't have a problem with doing that. That's fine. It's good to establish that linkage, but that then begs the question: whom do you represent? We're here representing the taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia. What is being represented here is starting to appear to be a federal position which, after negotiating for 20 years and after criticizing our government with regard to the need to be getting our positions together and out there.... We've done that, and now they're saying: "We don't have time." What can you make of that? They're not wanting to deal with.... Are they saying and are you saying that they aren't wanting to deal with this seriously in view of the fact that they have been at this for 20 years. Is that what is being said?
What we need to recognize here is that there is no need, in putting together an agreement in principle that we can then take out to the public -- and this gets us onto the next point.... The public have to have an opportunity to comment on what is within that document, within that agreement in principle. We can still have the time to do the further work on all the details, but the public have to be able to take that
[ Page 13989 ]
document and have a sense of where that is going, and have an opportunity to comment on where they stand with regard to that. So the answer is yes, where the member is asking whether this would go out for review. That's why we want to be able to get it out there.
We've been hearing from many people about the urgency of getting out there what has been accomplished. We are in favour of that; we want to see that happen. When the advice to the federal minister is, "Well, we're going to take another five months," I think we all know that five months ends up being ten months and maybe more. We also know that under the cost-sharing agreement that we have with regard to negotiating costs, there have been accusations. I don't know if they're accurate. Somebody, perhaps some of the federal Reform members, should be asking these questions in the federal House. They should be asking if the federal government really wants to conclude, or do they want to simply be dealing with this in the context of the budget that they have for negotiations? And would they just rather keep spinning wheels? So there are some questions that I think this information begs with regard to where the federal government is on this.
I think the third point is that I would encourage this hon. member to use all his persuasive powers with his federal counterparts to get them to live up to their commitment under the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. It is not acceptable to be a party to the signing of an agreement and then to decide that they don't like it anymore, or that it's not serving their purposes. Surely they negotiated that agreement with their eyes wide open. Surely they knew what was going into that agreement. Surely they understood the meaning of stumpage. Surely they had the experts there who could advise them. They have negotiated an agreement, and it's their responsibility to follow through under the terms of that agreement. I do encourage this member to use any power of persuasion that he has to deal with that. But let's remember whose interests are being represented here. We want a fair deal for all British Columbia, and a fair deal for all British Columbia means that it's going to be fair for the Nisga'a and fair for all the people with whom we seek a viable interdependence.
[3:00]
J. Weisgerber: In the interest of some continuity, I'll pick up with the Nisga'a talks and then perhaps go on to some other issues that I want to discuss. With respect to the material that has been the subject of discussion today, the documents released by some of the federal Reform members, I would like to go back to this question of fee simple land. I get a sense from reading these documents that the government is now willing to embrace the notion of fee simple title on reserve lands that would go to the band or the tribal council. Would the minister clarify that and also the form of tenure that he would envision and that is being sought by his negotiators on lands extending beyond current reserve boundaries that would form part of the settlements? Can the minister first of all clarify this position of fee simple title for reserve lands and then tell us the form of title that he envisions being part of future settlements?
Hon. J. Cashore: Since we are dealing with a document that has been released, and since I assume that members of the opposition have this document, I don't think that we should play footsie with it. I'm prepared to read it into the record. In reference to the question, I would first of all say that I encourage the members to read very carefully what the document says.
I'm just going to read it where it says "Land":
"British Columbia will stand by the land proposal tabled in July 1994, and will be prepared to negotiate a nominal increase in that land area.
"British Columbia will consider reasonable adjustments to the boundaries of Nisga'a lands -- that is, based on topography or Nisga'a objectives -- provided these do not result in an increase in the overall size of Nisga'a lands."
And here, very significantly in relation to the hon. member's question:
"British Columbia will stand by its proposal of minor adjustments to reserve boundaries outside Nisga'a lands -- which reserves would become fee simple lands -- and to create a limited number of small fee simple sites."
I know the hon. member is in consultation right now, but I really want him to hear what I'm going to say next. That third point refers to Indian reserve lands, which are now held in trust by the federal government and which are outside of the core area that has been considered. So we are recognizing, given our intent to see Indian reserve land as part of the abolition of the Indian Act -- which is just part of another process that the federal government is involved in -- that we would seek to see the current Indian reserve land become land that is held perhaps collectively, but fee simple, and that it would be subject to the land title base of the province of British Columbia. That is our intent. That's what we seek to achieve, and therefore this should not be misunderstood to read that we are putting fee simple land on the table. We're talking about taking land which is IR land currently held in trust by the federal government, and bringing that land in as part of the treaty, and that would become fee simple land.
With regard to the member's question of what we see with regard to lands that are not currently Indian reserve land, we would see that in a settlement, where there was land that was agreed upon as part of a settlement -- recognizing that this would be in a very confined and limited area in relation to the total original claim -- that, too, would be land which we refer to as settlement lands. Those lands would be lands that would all be in the same category. Those lands also would then become fee simple lands over which other elements of the treaty would have effect.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I acknowledge that I, as the minister was talking about Indian reserve lands that are now contemplated to be transferred with fee simple ownership.... Perhaps the minister would confirm that he is talking about the kind of title that was, in fact, established at Sechelt some years ago when the Sechelt Indian band achieved self-government and title to their land. It was, indeed, fee simple. Perhaps the minister will confirm that it is that model that is being anticipated with the reference to fee simple in this document.
Furthermore, perhaps the minister would be good enough -- as we're talking about the document which refers to a proposal table, July 1994 -- to make available for us the July 1994 proposal so that we can then have the benefit of a full discussion around this issue, or, if indeed for some reason the minister is unwilling to table this document, describe for us the contents of that proposal. So my question to the minis-
[ Page 13990 ]
ter, who I gather is also involved in some consultations.... Well, I'll wait. As the minister was good enough to wait for me, I'll also wait for him.
Could the minister either describe for us or agree to table the land proposal referred to in this document? And would he refer us then to the various forms of tenure which are anticipated on those lands thus described?
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the land that would eventually be what we've termed "the settlement land," while we can't say that it would be identical to the situation with the Sechelt, I can state what the approach of the government is in its negotiating position: settlement land is land owned and managed by first nations, but the underlying title is retained by the Crown. Treaties will clarify the rights and responsibilities of first nations and non-aboriginal communities with regard to settlement land, and all citizens will have an opportunity to be heard by any government if and when issues and activities affect them.
I want to put a more correct emphasis on something that I said earlier when I referred to fee simple land. The term that we are using is "fee simple equivalent." There may be some aspects of the definition of that land where it may not fit a strict definition of fee simple land. If that is the case, it would be the equivalent of fee simple land, in that the underlying title of B.C. Lands would obtain.
With regard to the questions about tabling the July proposal and the proposal that we are about to table as referenced in the documents that became public today, I think the hon. member knows that because of the agreement that he signed when he was the minister, we are required to consult with the other parties about the release of such documents. I will say to him now what I have said before: we are asking our negotiating partners to agree to allow us to make those documents public. We are restricted by the terms of the framework agreement under which we are operating. I know what the hon. member says about some aspects of section 7 which have to do with public consultation and all of that, but the fact still remains that the negotiators advised me when I raised this issue that they cannot unilaterally, because of the terms of that agreement, enable us to release those documents.
F. Randall: I would like leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery we have about 62 grade 4 and 5 students from Second Street Community School. They are accompanied by their teacher, Lorraine Hodgson. I would like to mention that they are from that great riding of Burnaby-Edmonds. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Weisgerber: There a couple of questions that flow from that, and we could probably carry on here for a long time. Without wanting to debate the framework agreement again -- and I certainly would be prepared to -- I do believe that, indeed, if one or the other of the parties at the table continues to refuse broader access to information, then the minister, at the very least, has an obligation to tell us which of the parties is being uncooperative in releasing detailed documents around negotiations, as a start. I would be curious about that.
I deliberately asked the minister to either table or describe the contents, and from my interpretation or knowledge of the framework agreement, I don't believe there is anything at all in the framework that would prevent him from describing the proposal that was tabled in July 1994. Perhaps the minister would be willing to at least do that for us.
Finally -- and again, understanding the minister's desire to respond to these questions -- in reference to fee simple land, the minister has suggested that the ownership and management of the land would flow to the band, with the underlying title remaining with the Crown. Can the minister tell us if, specifically in the case of reserve lands, the title would then remain with the Crown provincial or the Crown federal?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to that question, we want to get rid of reserve lands. Therefore we want to see all the land that is part of the settlement in the same category, and it would be underlying Crown provincial title.
J. Weisgerber: Is the minister saying to us that's what the province wants to achieve, or that it's what is anticipated through the negotiations? Will the minister, again, consider responding to my request to describe, if not table, the 1994 proposal for lands?
Hon. J. Cashore: We want to be as descriptive as we possibly can be, given any restrictions that there are. I am endeavouring to do that, and that is why it is.... Actually, I want you to know that I had nothing to do with these documents being leaked today, but I really do mean it when I say that it's kind of a sigh of relief on my part to now have an opportunity to be talking at least about the aspects that are contained within those documents. Yes, it is my desire to be discussing in a descriptive way, to the greatest extent possible, the various elements we are using as at least the underlying principles of what we're doing.
[3:15]
With regard to the land, we seek an end to reserve land and we hope to achieve that -- if I understand the question. That is what we hope to achieve through negotiations. That's the position we're taking forward. We're seeking, through negotiations, to achieve the day when we see an end to reserve land and when that land would be underlaid with B.C. Crown title.
J. Weisgerber: Okay, one last shot at this about the land described in the July 1994 proposal. Could the minister tell us the number of acres involved, the various forms of access or ownership, and the rights of access? Can the minister describe in some general way the proposal contained in the 1994 proposal? I am absolutely convinced that there is nothing in the framework agreement that would prevent him from giving us that description.
Hon. J. Cashore: In fairness to our relationship with the three negotiating teams, we would have to have permission with regard to the numbers. We have to recognize that, in honouring that agreement. If the hon. member says that that is not consistent with the agreement he signed, I have to advise him that the negotiators do not agree with his position on that -- any of the negotiators. He can continue to make that statement, but I have a copy of the agreement that he signed, and I'd be very happy to table it. As a matter of fact, I have it here right now. I'm not sure of the proper procedure, but I would like to table this agreement so that it's available for all to see.
[ Page 13991 ]
The Chair: Minister, I must advise you that we can't table it in committee. However, we can have it understood that it will be photocopied and shared.
Hon. J. Cashore: In that case, hon. Chair, I would like to ask that I have it back, because I may wish to refer to it.
I would like to describe the access provisions that are in the document that was released today -- I feel I can refer to that:
"British Columbia will negotiate access provisions based on its 'Discussion Paper on Access: Considerations' dated March 7, 1994.
"British Columbia will require that non-Nisga'a have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes.
"British Columbia will negotiate a process for regulation of recreational access which is responsive to Nisga'a interests and the unique attributes of Nisga'a lands -- for example, cultural sites, sensitive habitat, villages."
J. Weisgerber: I was hoping to find something a bit more descriptive in terms of hectares, square kilometres or volumes of that nature. Just so the minister knows, he was kind enough in some venue over the last year or two to have tabled the framework agreement at least once before. So I'm sure that if all members go back to their files, they'll find copies of it.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: No -- and fair enough. It's a document that there have been interpretations of. I will continue to believe that I'm right and you're wrong, and it probably ever will be thus.
If the minister is not prepared to give us a greater description of those lands, perhaps he will be good enough to share with us at some later date correspondence with some other negotiating teams specifically requesting permission to provide details of the July 1994 proposal to members of the Legislature.
Hon. J. Cashore: I have stated on the record that I'm going to be requesting their agreement. I don't think that requires any other documentation; I will be on the record in Hansard.
J. Weisgerber: If by that answer the minister is confirming that he will share it with members of the Legislature as it becomes available, no further documentation is required.
Hon. J. Cashore: If we can get agreement to make this information public, that is consistent with what we have been seeking to do ever since we launched the openness process and did everything we could to open up the treaty-making process. I read an article the other day that said that out of the 43 treaties where statements of intent have been filed, only a very small number have openness protocols. Anyone reading that would think: "Well, gee, that's not very good." But the fact is that those are the only ones that are beginning the process of negotiations, and we won't go into negotiations if we don't have an openness protocol. So the fact is that if there are 43 negotiations, there will be 43 openness protocols.
J. Weisgerber: I know that there are others who would like to get into the discussion. I won't go beyond my questions around Nisga'a without giving others the opportunity. I'd like to pursue each and every one of the items in this document -- the provincial position -- but I'm going to resist doing that and try and hit those that particularly have questions that jump out.
I'd like to go back to the subsurface resources question that I raised with the minister in question period earlier today. I find it ironic that the province has maintained a position, starting with the Fort Nelson band, of negotiating a 50 percent sharing agreement with Fort Nelson at the end of the day, and applying that same position to the Doig River and Blueberry bands, which I did compliment the minister on pursuing and achieving some months ago. I find it strange, given that that issue arose again with McLeod Lake, that this document suggests that the province has become willing to concede total subsurface rights pretty early in the process of the Nisga'a negotiations. I'm wondering how the minister explains that different position, and what implication he might see of this position as it would relate to Treaty 8 and agreements that were previously reached with other bands.
Hon. J. Cashore: As I said before, the McLeod Lake and the other one that the hon. member referenced are adhesions within Treaty 8, and therefore he is really comparing two very different situations. It's very important to recognize that these are primarily negotiations, treaties, between the federal government and those aboriginal bands. British Columbia is involved in that process with regard to the need to protect the interests of British Columbians where British Columbia land is involved. To make a comparison between those two situations is to stretch the point. There should not be any impact with regard to what is happening in the Nisga'a negotiation, because those are two very different sets of circumstances.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure that I would agree with the minister. Given that I had long discussions with the negotiators for the McLeod Lake band, I was advised repeatedly that both the provincial and the federal government kept coming back to the McLeod Lake adhesion negotiations with precedents not only from the numbered treaties across Canada and across the Prairies but from modern precedents set in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Indeed, the province continues to refer to agreements reached in Treaty 8 with respect to subsurface rights.
The fact of the matter is that the province owns subsurface rights; it owned them on the Doig River and Blueberry band reserves, it owned them on the Fort Nelson reserves, and it was unwilling to agree to transfer those rights to those bands but appears willing to transfer rights under existing reserves to the Nisga'a. I think there is a very clear parallel, and I'm somewhat surprised by the minister's position.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would point out that the hon. member is still referring to 91(24) lands in his comments, which are reserve lands. As I said before, through the Treaty Commission treaty negotiation process, we are seeking to move away from Indian reserve lands. To my knowledge, this band has not filed a statement of intent to negotiate a claim under the B.C. Treaty Commission. It's possible that they have, depending on their current relationship with the Treaty 8 Tribal Association. But this hon. member is referring to lands that would still be federal reserve lands at the conclusion of this agreement with McLeod Lake. So I really do think it is apples and
[ Page 13992 ]
oranges, when I have stated very clearly that our goal -- through the treaty-making process that we have helped to design with the First Nations Summit and the federal government -- that we are seeking, through a whole spectrum of issues, is to build a new and more effective interdependent relationship. So we are not dealing with that spectrum of issues when we are dealing with Treaty 8.
At the end of the day we don't have the option in that treaty adhesion to be altering the position of the federal government. At the end of the day it continues to be Indian reserve land, because it's their negotiation. We are there to protect the interests of British Columbians.
J. Weisgerber: I've got to try again. The McLeod Lake band is claiming that treaty rights are an adhesion under Treaty 8. The lands transferred to them as part of that treaty agreement come from the province. The lands transferred to the Fort Nelson band came from British Columbia. The lands transferred to the Doig River band and the Blueberry band came from British Columbia without subsurface rights being included. As a result of threatened litigation, and later negotiations, the province -- both the former government and the current government -- believed that there should be a split in the revenues generated from those subsurface reserves.
As we are led to believe today, the Nisga'a proposal suggests that British Columbia will stand by its proposal that the Nisga'a will own all subsurface resources on Nisga'a lands. I assume those to be both existing reserve lands and those described in the July 1994 proposal, and that they will include gas, oil and precious metals. For the life of me, I can't see how there is any substantive difference between the position taken by the province with the Nisga'a and the position taken by McLeod Lake with respect to lands that would ultimately become reserve lands, given the fact that there is a further precedent existing with the Treaty 8 bands. It's just an unusual position, and it's inconsistent. I think it probably describes the inconsistencies that we've seen in those bits of information we've been made privy to.
[3:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: I have responded to the question that the hon. member asked. There's no inconsistency whatsoever in the provincial position on this. We are involved in two very different sets of circumstances; one is seeking in a very complete way to bring about the end of the Indian Act, and end reserve land, in the availability of negotiations with first nations who have entered into the treaty process. With regard to the Treaty 8 discussions, that's not on. So we're looking into a different array of issues when we look at what's happening with the treaty negotiations that come under the Treaty Commission or with the Nisga'a. This is an adhesion. I have made that point, and I don't see much value in continuing to repeat that point.
J. Weisgerber: I recognize when I've hit a brick wall, and I'll move on to something else.
I'd like to ask the minister: under the area that deals with taxation at the bottom of page 4, could the minister confirm that under section 87 of the Indian Act all areas of taxation are under discussion? In other words, is the province negotiating...? Is the provincial position not only to open up the issue of taxes on properties but also personal income tax? Or, to be more specific, is it the intent of the minister and his negotiators to ensure that aboriginal people become fully involved in the B.C. tax structure as part of these negotiations?
Hon. J. Cashore: The short answer is yes. With regard to whether or not section 87 encompasses all the issues the hon. member referred to, I believe it does, but I may stand corrected on that. If I do, I will certainly follow up on that appropriately -- but I believe it does. We want to see the same tax structure for all British Columbians. There are conditions within the self-government aspects of negotiations that deal with the ability of the first nation to tax its own citizens for services within that area also. So that's another factor in that whole part of the package.
I just want to read from the document that has been released, since it is now out there. What it says is:
"British Columbia will agree to a treaty provision recognizing Nisga'a government authority to impose direct taxes on Nisga'a citizens on Nisga'a lands.
"The continuation of the tax exemption in section 87 of the Indian Act after a treaty settlement is unacceptable to British Columbia and the treaty should provide for its discontinuance after some period of time."
[M. Lord in the chair.]
I just want to say that while this may cause some concern among some parties with regard to the position of this government, I don't know of any other government that has ever put this position forward. I'm not aware of the previous Social Credit government, at the time that it was working on its preparation with regard to the Nisga'a, having put that position forward. We believe this is a position which recognizes the benefit of first nations being able to be in a productive and honourable relationship with British Columbians, which affords a more effective entry into the economy of the province. We think they have demonstrated time and again that they are capable of this. As they do that and achieve that kind of self-respect and self-determination, a mark of it will be the ability to pay for the services provided to them. I think that's a matter of pride, and I think that we can support this position, on the basis of the values both to non-aboriginal and aboriginal British Columbians, as the appropriate way to go about it.
I do want to say that within the context of negotiation, we recognize that there would need to be an incremental process for this to be accomplished. That would need to be done in a way which is purposeful, setting a date time line, and which also takes into consideration the time it would take to achieve the capacity to enable that to happen appropriately. We believe that we have taken very significant leadership in putting this position forward.
J. Weisgerber: In the minister's selective reading of documents that he inherited, I would refer him back to something called the principles for land claims negotiations, which were broadly published in 1990 when the province first -- under my ministry -- agreed to participate in land claims generally and the Nisga'a claims specifically. The reference in principles for land claims negotiations includes a section that dealt with the provision of equal opportunities and obligations, including taxation. For the minister's information, it was my full intent and that of the former government, when the decision
[ Page 13993 ]
was made to enter into negotiations and specifically into the Nisga'a negotiations, that taxation would indeed be a topic and would be something the government would achieve during negotiations.
Perhaps the minister is prepared to go a bit further in his statement. Is the minister prepared to insist on requiring that part of this settlement will be a formula to bring aboriginal people into the tax regime in British Columbia? Is this a point on which the government is prepared to take a stand?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is an unequivocal yes.
J. Weisgerber: That is encouraging. As we go through, perhaps I'll be able to get more unequivocal yeses on a number of principles that were spelled out in 1990, when we went into this process.
Under the heading "Cash" in the document we've been discussing today, there's a statement that British Columbia will support a modest increase to the cash component. I find that curious, inasmuch as this minister and former ministers under this government have led us to believe that all the cash would be coming from the federal government. I wonder why the government would bother to take a position, if B.C. taxpayers are not going to be involved directly in the contribution of that cash. We know that British Columbia taxpayers will participate, at least indirectly, in providing cash for settlements. Can the minister tell us the reason the province feels obliged to take a position such as is outlined in this document?
Hon. J. Cashore: In the MOU, the projections are that it averages 17 percent cash for the province. We have never, ever said that the federal government would pay all the cash; we have never said that. We have said that it would break out to approximately 17 percent of the cash, and that also under the MOU, the province is responsible for most of the land. That is what we have said time and time again, and we're on the record as saying that. This is a straw man; there is no difference in anything we have said, as the hon. member alleges. I'll leave it at that.
J. Weisgerber: I certainly have never had that sense. Indeed, the province has gone out of its way to say that the federal government would accept the responsibilities for cash and the provincial government would accept the responsibilities for land and resources. I've often thought that the province was going too far and that it hadn't done a very good job of negotiating the cost-sharing arrangement. If the minister is telling us now that we're exposed for 17 percent of the cash and most of the land and resources that will be involved in settling land claims, then this cost-sharing agreement is even worse than I'd expected it would be.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member says he doesn't think we've done a very good job negotiating this. Canada obviously thinks we've done a very good job, because, as indicated in the documents released today, Canada feels that the cost-sharing arrangement is a problem for them. I think this speaks for itself.
I want to make it very, very clear that aboriginal people in British Columbia do pay taxes now in a great many ways. They pay income taxes in a great many circumstances. They pay the sales tax, and they pay other taxes when they are involved in activities that are off reserve land. I see some opposition members disagreeing with that. I cannot understand why. I recommend that you sit down with people of first nations and talk to them about their taxation experience. I think that when the time comes when we see a much better relationship, in which we've effectively addressed poverty and unemployment, we will see, even without the position we've taken here, a greater amount of taxes being paid by aboriginal people as they are able to come more into the mainstream. But as Joe Mathias and others have said, they want, as a means of treaty-making, to come into British Columbia and into Canada, and I take that to mean that they do want to see the day when they are able to pay their share of taxes along with all other Canadians.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, we're talking about tax exemptions under section 87 of the Indian Act; you understand that, and I understand that. That means that incomes earned on reserve are not taxable; it means that purchases made on reserve of major items are not taxable. Those are the areas under discussion, and to tell me about purchases and taxes paid by aboriginal people off reserve is, I think, a bit redundant.
Finally, before turning it over to the leader of the Alliance, I'd like to raise a couple of questions around Nisga'a government issues. In negotiations with McLeod Lake, the province seemed particularly unwilling to venture into the area of self-government. Can the minister tell us whether or not the idea of the inherent right to self-government is being pursued as part of the Nisga'a and government negotiations? If it is, can he give us some sense of the extent of that government?
Hon. J. Cashore: With the Nisga'a and in the Treaty Commission negotiations, we have recognized that self-government will be negotiated within the context of the treaty. The learned judges have said that there are undefined aboriginal rights and that those rights are best defined in a negotiated process. So where self-government is involved, that would be defined in that treaty process. Self-government is not an issue that is being negotiated in the federal government and McLeod Lake negotiations.
J. Weisgerber: As the minister knows, it was an issue raised by the McLeod Lake band that governments refused to address. However, my primary question is: will the minister confirm for us that any self-government arrangements reached under the treaty will not be enshrined in the constitution?
[3:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: I won't guarantee that. Some will and some won't.
I want to go back to a comment the member made a little while ago about me having referred to the fact that first nations people do pay taxes. The hon. member was concerned that my comment was redundant. I just want to say that the reason I made that comment was that I think all of us have heard a number of aboriginal people express a very real concern that there's a kind of myth out there that they never pay any taxes. I think it's important to put on the record that we do recognize that under the present circumstances, in many, many instances they do. I was not seeking to be redundant; I think that is a point that needs to be made, because what we're trying to establish here is fairness and keeping the
[ Page 13994 ]
record straight. The record is that first nations pay many, many taxes. The hon. member is correct: what we have put forward is that we seek to end the section 87 exemption.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity afforded by the Leader of the Third Party to keep to the topic of the Nisga'a while we have this document in front of us, and I recognize that we will have an opportunity to come back to other, broader questions at a later date. I wanted to go through this because I really, genuinely, want to understand what it is we're attempting to do. I don't have a very clear understanding from the discussion to date as to exactly what the government's position is on a series of issues. For the minister and his staff to perhaps get ahead of me here, I'll say that I want to talk specifically about land; I want to talk particularly about forest tenure, subsurface resources and fish. Those are the four areas in which I have primary concerns.
On the first issue of land, this document, this land proposal that's referred to in this document that was tabled in July 1994, which we unfortunately are not able to have because of this confidentiality agreement -- or at least the interpretation of it by one or more of the members involved in the negotiation.... Could the minister tell us who tabled that document? Whose document was it and who tabled it?
Hon. J. Cashore: British Columbia tabled that document at the table in July 1994. We had to have federal agreement on that because of implications under the federal-provincial cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. Within that memorandum of understanding, where a dollar amount is being tabled, the federal government has the right to grant permission for that document to be tabled, because that process has been agreed upon in the memorandum of understanding.
G. Wilson: So this is our proposal. When I say "our," I'm talking about the province, on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It says that we'll be prepared to negotiate a nominal increase in that land area. I noticed that, with respect to cash, it suggests that there will be further increases to cash if in fact there is no increase from the July 1994 proposal, and that seems to be tied. So are we saying: this is our proposal but if you want more money we're prepared to trade additional land? Is that what's on the table in this question?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a relationship between cash and land; if there's more cash there's less land, and if there's more land there's less cash.
G. Wilson: I understand, then, that this relationship between the cash and the land is a relationship that is exclusive to the province's costs. Because presumably the province is responsible for the land, and therefore any cash in lieu of land comes out of the proportional amount that the province is undertaking to pay. So in the event that the province is broke -- which we are, to the tune of about $28 billion of debt -- one might argue that expanded land and jurisdiction to land would be a favourable position in lieu of cash payment. Is that a fair assumption?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, that isn't a fair assumption at all. Again, I think we have to consider that question in the context of the federal-provincial cost-sharing MOU which I have outlined recently.
G. Wilson: I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but it seems to me that within this arrangement, the matter of land is a question that is exclusive to the province, if we're not talking about cash in lieu. If there's some kind of agreement, then, between the federal government -- that they may be able to expand, or to essentially sweeten the pot in terms of the amount of money paid.... If there is an agreement not to go beyond the land proposal tabled by the provincial governments, can the minister tell us if that additional money will still be subjected to that same cost-share relationship; or is it something that is going to be exclusively born by the province? Because the matter on the land, presumably, is something that the province has to agree to exclusive of the federal government.
Hon. J. Cashore: All cash would always be subject to the cost-sharing arrangement.
G. Wilson: Okay. So that clarifies that position. Effectively, we put down a position. We've tabled a position on land, and there is some agreement between the three parties that if they stick to that position, then there may be an opportunity for them to get some additional cash. That, I think, is what it suggests under this -- if indeed the documents we have are accurate, and the minister seems to suggest they are -- because it says: "Some further increases to cash may be possible if the land is not increased from the July 1994 proposal." So that is something that is agreed to by all parties. Presumably, then, if they chose to stick to our opening...or whatever our position was -- I'm not sure it was an opening position, but anyway, the position that we tabled in July 1994 -- they are open to go for additional dollars. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: We seek the agreement of the other parties to the position that we are tabling.
G. Wilson: Then let's come down to this question of British Columbia standing by its proposal with respect to reserve boundaries. I understand -- the minister explained that in some detail -- exactly how he's proposing to do this, and I'm not.... I don't think that's a bad idea. Actually, the Alliance position is that we should move toward the provision of title on reserve lands as a means of resolution. So I think that is a good way to go.
But where I have some difficulty, then, is in understanding, if we're going to do that with respect to the land that is currently under comprehensive claim, that is within the broader negotiation, and if we're going to eliminate the lines between the reserve land and the balance -- which is what the minister's intention is to do, so that the Nisga'a land is not in any way distinguished as IR land and non-IR land, which is I think, understandable from all parties' points of view.... Then can the minister tell us how title runs with that land and what it does with respect to both the Constitution Act of the province of British Columbia and the Land Title Act, which defers title of Crown land to the Crown, effectively? How does that work legally in the matter of title?
Hon. J. Cashore: The title to the land would be in the first nation ownership, but the underlying title would be with the provincial Crown.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might want to just explain that in a bit more detail, because what we're suggest-
[ Page 13995 ]
ing is that then it would operate in a manner that would be comparable to fee simple title as we have it now -- as any individual owning fee simple title. There is an underlying right of Crown on fee simple land. If I understand that's going to be exactly the same relationship, then I wonder if the minister can tell us what powers of expropriation we have, whether or not they're the same, and whether or not we have the same right to access on behalf of the Crown. Do we have the same right to communication and transportation corridors, for example? Is it going to work as an exactly parallel comparison?
Hon. J. Cashore: The treaty would provide for access provisions. It would provide for the resumption of land for utility corridors, and the Expropriation Act would not apply. When I talk about this land being owned in a manner similar to fee simple, one of the reasons that the definition of it might be a bit different -- albeit it's underlain by B.C. Crown title -- is the fact that this land would be held collectively by the first nation. Within the area of those lands, there could be different rules governing, for instance, the sale of land. Insofar as there were land issues that pertained to that particular area, they could have their own method of administering them.
G. Wilson: That answer led me right into my next question. Without actually looking at some legal text, it's a little difficult to know what exactly is being agreed to here or is up for agreement. One of the principal differences in this model, and one of the distinguishing factors, I assume, would be that fee simple title runs for the most part with individuals or with a collective group of individuals who are entitled under some company or some collective. That's not always so, because there are partnerships, and we have different methods of ownership of land.
In this instance, we now have an authority that is a first nation "government." With respect to this new government being proposed on the matter of land title, I wonder if the minister might want to tell us how that is going to be impacted on or in what way that's going to provide for those people who will be covered under the agreement that took place last year with respect to Nisga'a citizenship. I believe that was in March 1994.
I understand that there is a companion agreement on Nisga'a citizenship whereby two members of the four clan groups are able to come together to determine the right of a Nisga'a citizen. If we're dealing with land title now, and if we're giving provision of land title notwithstanding that there is a clause that would provide for underlying Crown title for the province, where do we find the connection between the right of a Nisga'a citizen to access and ownership of the land and the right of the actual owner, who must be the Nisga'a first nation? How does that relationship work?
[4:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: As Nisga'a citizens, they will be members of the first nation. They will have a constitution, and within that, they will have the right to vote on issues that relate to the way in which their land will be administered.
G. Wilson: Now we get into what becomes a rather complicated issue. They will be Nisga'a citizens -- that is, citizens of a first nation that is going to have authority and jurisdiction over land to which they have fee simple title or something comparable to it, even though there is an underlying right of the Crown on the land ownership. But I would assume that if the Nisga'a citizens decide that they are going to administer their lands in a manner that may be contrary to the provisions that would be enacted by provincial statutes, particularly in relation to resources, given that we're providing ownership of both surface and subsurface minerals, and talking about access to extraction and harvest of fish -- and I'll come to that in a minute -- in a commercial manner.... What we're effectively doing is creating a classification here, and a jurisdiction within the province, in which rights and the determining factors on rights around things like representation in government, ability to tax and those kinds of things are going to be exclusive to one group of people, exclusive of the right of other British Columbians, even though that land is a functional part of what we would know as the province of British Columbia. Is that correct?
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: They will not have the power to make changes that are not consistent with the terms and conditions that are negotiated into the treaty. I gave an example a moment ago about utility corridors; that would be negotiated into the treaty. Environmental standards, whether it's environmental assessment or environmental protection, would be on a meet-or-beat basis.
First of all, and I'm talking generically here about treaty-making principles, I think that in most treaties we would see that there would be an agreed-upon process between the first nation and the government as to how to handle environmental protection and assessment, so that there is a mutual benefit. In some instances, for instance, it would be the first nation stating that in their interest, they would like the province to continue administering this function. In other instances, they may wish to have some role in that, perhaps as conservation officers or something like that. It would be a negotiated process that would state within the treaty how that relationship is to function.
The purpose of the treaty would be to ensure that it's very clearly spelled out how those possibilities this hon. member referred to which might impact on the province would not impact in a negative way on the interest of the province. That would be negotiated into the treaty, and it would clarify, as the courts have pointed out, that which is currently not well defined.
I go back to an example -- at the risk of boring you; I know you've heard me say it before -- from when I was Minister of Environment. There were limitations with regard to the ability of conservation officers to enter first nations land, because it was held in trust by the federal government. It was in nobody's interest, in that instance, that those officials would not be able to enter. These treaties will describe how that will work, so that it works in the mutual interest of the first nations and their neighbours.
G. Wilson: This is a really, really critical issue, as I'm sure the minister and his negotiators well know. It's one that I want to get a very clear understanding of, because, for example, there are transportation corridors -- highways -- that run through this land that is under negotiation. Those highways were built by the province -- or at least have been administered by the province; if not in whole, then certainly in part.
[ Page 13996 ]
They are highways that are going to have to provide access to lands beyond. That's something within the transportation and highways act that we know we have provision for, as well as within the regulations governing it. We see that there is this proposition of a negotiated access or easement through these highways.
My question to the minister is: who will have ownership of those roads? Will those roads be the province's roads? Will those roads belong to the Nisga'a, where there will be an agreement that they're going to allow us to drive through? What happens there? If, in fact, ownership of those roads becomes that of the Nisga'a, then is there a compensation factor paid back for the construction, maintenance and ongoing development of those highway systems? How does that work?
Hon. J. Cashore: The main roads will be provincial roads; the roads in the settlement area will be Nisga'a roads.
I just want to put on the record the position with regard to access. Access through settlement lands that are required by third-party interests to get to resource tenures will be maintained through treaty settlements.
We have problems in the province right now with the number of roads that are technically in trespass. In many instances the federal government, being the trustee of the land, has not fulfilled its responsibility to transfer the land where those routes are in provincial jurisdiction. Because that has not happened, we continue to have to deal with this problem. Treaties will resolve the problem through mutual consent so it is very clear that access is ensured. The very treaty itself will identify the category of the road and who has the responsibility of maintaining it. It is our position that access must be ensured; that will therefore be a treaty right. It is not a right of first nations but a right of British Columbian citizens. At the present time, we have problems exercising that right.
G. Wilson: I can't see how our inability to exercise that right now is going to be made easier in any way if in some instances.... I certainly don't direct these comments toward the Nisga'a, because I've had an opportunity to be up there and spend some time with the Nisga'a people, and I understand what they're doing. I have a great deal of respect for the Nisga'a people.
If you enter into this in principle, and you get a negotiation that stalls somewhere along the line, one of the easiest ways to get your way is to block the road. We've seen that in a number of instances. I don't think we want to digress into that discussion just yet, because there are some issues that might come up around that a little later on in these estimates.
It's important for us to understand, then, that no matter what the outcome of this negotiation is -- and I'm assuming that we are going to see something of that in this Legislature shortly -- there will be a provision of free access to all citizens of British Columbia. Indeed, not just citizens of British Columbia but any member of the travelling public must freely access, cross and have uninterrupted access to those roads. It's important to have that on the table. I assume that would also apply to energy transportation corridors and so on.
I come back to this matter of title. I talk about the forest tenure and the subsurface resources, which are on page 2 of this document. What it talks about here.... Just to read it into the record, so those who are following this debate might know what we're talking about, it says:
"British Columbia is willing to pursue creation, without expropriation, of the Nisga'a forestry interest in the form of a forest licence, which would be subject to the Forest Act."
It then goes on to say:
"Subject to cost and resolution of cost-sharing issues with Canada, the forest licence would have an AAC" -- that's an annual allowable cut -- "of up to 150,000 cubic metres per year.
"Arrangements with respect to regional fibre supply and jobs will have to be negotiated and settled."
This is obviously a very critical section of this agreement.
The question I have is with respect to this forest licence and the Forest Act. First of all, does that mean that the province is going to retain ownership of the forests within the Nisga'a lands, and does it also mean that the Forest Act and the licence of the forest that would be governed under the Forest Act will be the sole jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia, as it would be in any other provincial forest jurisdiction? Or does it mean that we are transferring to the Nisga'a people, under this new government, a forest licence with a guarantee of 150,000 cubic metres per year?
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to this forest tenure heading, I want to make it very clear that this is in reference to a forest tenure which is off the Nisga'a settlement land. On those settlement lands that we were discussing earlier that we would seek to cease being IR lands, and the other settlement lands that would be included in that, they would have ownership of the forest resources. With regard to this land, we are referring to a 150,000-cubic-metre forest licence. Therefore I think we need to look at that and recognize that this would be part of the package that has considered seriously an agreement in principle, which we believe in good faith can help to achieve economic interdependence in a way that recognizes the needs of fibre supply in the area and the needs of workers in the area who are non-first nations. Therefore this is considered a component of this array of aspects of this agreement-in-principle proposal.
G. Wilson: So the minister is telling us that we are effectively entering into an agreement of 150,000 cubic metres' supply of fibre under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nisga'a, given that it's governed by the Forest Act, in addition to ownership of all of the forest lands within this huge territory that they're negotiating. Is that what I understand?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think I should read into the record what the document says.
"British Columbia is willing to pursue creation, without expropriation, of a Nisga'a forestry interest in the form of a forest licence, which would be subject to the Forest Act.
"Subject to cost and resolution of cost-sharing issues with Canada, the forest licence would have an AAC of up to 150,000 cubic metres per year.
"Arrangements with respect to regional fibre supply and jobs will have to be negotiated and settled."
So I think that is very clear.
In order to put some perspective into this, I should point out that there are three other major forest licences in the area.
[ Page 13997 ]
When you consider that two of them are over 342,000 cubic metres and one is 250,000 cubic metres, this is a great deal smaller than those existing forest licences in the area, and we seek to negotiate.... This is not a fait accompli by any means, but we seek to achieve this through consultation and work with people in the industry and in jobs in that area. At the end of the day, it should be a win-win that is cognizant of the surrounding community -- of their need for jobs -- and of the importance of keeping British Columbia fibre going to British Columbia mills. Therefore we believe that this is a very important part of this package, that we will have no difficulty in putting forward as a very positive element that we believe is potentially a win-win.
[4:15]
G. Wilson: I'll defer to the forestry interests in that region as to who's going to win and who's going to lose, or if it's going to be a win-win. I don't pretend to be an expert on forestry matters in that area.
It's implied that the 150,000 cubic metre area that's going to be available in addition to all the timber within the jurisdiction will be subject to the Forest Act. Can the minister tell us if the forest practices and forest harvesting activities within the so-called tribal area, if that's the appropriate term, will be subject to the Forest Act? Or is it going to be exclusive to the Nisga'a people as to how they decide that they're going harvest and what kind of forest practices they'll adhere to?
Hon. J. Cashore: The timber licence would definitely be subject to the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code. With regard to the land on the Nisga'a settlement lands -- and some would argue with regard to the characterization that this is a huge area -- that is still subject to negotiation. We are seeking to achieve assurance through the treaty that those lands will be managed in a way that's very effective for sustainability and stewardship. I would refer to the good reputation of the Nisga'a when it comes to matters of ecology. This is a positive element of the ongoing discussions.
G. Wilson: I don't take issue at all with the Nisga'a people's record on ecology. As I say, I've been up there, and I've had a chance to spend some time there, but this a precedent-setting agreement, and let's not fool ourselves. Not all jurisdictions may act in a similar manner.
Because this is precedent-setting, we have to be extremely careful as to how we proceed. If this is subject to negotiation, I wonder why there wasn't the same caveat put against the forest lands with respect to the agreement to that land area that was put on the matter of the fish. Maybe we'll get to that. The minister might want to answer that with respect to the need to have reclamation, reforestation, silviculture and all the things that have been brought forward in the forest practices act, an act which I think this government should take some credit for. Anyway, we'll get to that a bit later.
The minister has mentioned that there are three current licences and that there is a considerable harvest out of that area. How much of the actual existing harvest now falls within the Nisga'a territory? What is the revenue to the government from that activity, and what is the anticipated revenue loss to this government? I'm assuming that any revenue from licence or stumpage agreements is going to go to the Nisga'a people rather than to the provincial Crown. Maybe the minister could give us a breakdown of how much is coming in now and what is anticipated to be lost as a result of this agreement.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sure the member will canvass some of this with the Minister of Forests. Having visited the Nass, I'm sure the hon. member is aware of this, but I think that one of the real concerns of the Nisga'a is the extent to which harvesting has already taken place. Given that it's the northerly part of our province, the trees don't grow as fast, so there are some real concerns on their part about how long it will take for the forests that have been logged to become productive.
There has been harvesting on that land, and some of the concerns expressed by the Nisga'a are about the sustainability of the lands they would see in the settlement area we have proposed, given that factor. That's one of the reasons we believe this forest tenure is in good faith, recognizing a desire on the part of all three parties to achieve something which enables them to have that economic activity
With regard to the numbers the hon. member asked for, those are matters that are subject to negotiation. I don't have those numbers with me, but I don't intend to put that on the record at this time.
G. Wilson: I look forward to hearing the same response from the Minister of Forests when I ask him -- that it will be subject to negotiation and he can't.... That's the kind of information the public is going to want. The people of British Columbia are going to want to know what those hard numbers are, because let's face it, there has been an awful lot made of the fact that the $28 billion debt we carry in the province is underwritten by our Crown lands, our resources and our resource wealth, and that therefore we shouldn't be looking at the situation too pessimistically, because we have such tremendous wealth within the province. If we're now negotiating that wealth into another jurisdiction -- and in effect that's what we're doing -- I think the public is going to want to know why, exactly what the cost is, what the revenue is and what the impact of it is going to be.
I have a question on that with respect to subsurface resources, and it comes to the same thing. Why is it...? I know this was canvassed by the Leader of the Third Party. I don't want to go back through all that, because I'm very familiar with the case he was referring to. He was unsuccessful in getting a real answer, I think, to his question -- again, to give credit to the minister -- probably because of the sensitivity of the ongoing negotiations. But I think the public wants to know why we would stand by a proposal that will provide ownership to all of the subsurface resources, and whether or not the province has actually done a fair inventory of what those resources are. If so, is that inventory available to the public so we know exactly what we're trading away? This is the future generation's wealth which we're just about to trade off -- that is, of the non-aboriginal community, recognizing that the Nisga'a will benefit.
Have you done the inventory? Is that inventory available to the public so that we know what oil, gas and precious metals we're dealing with here in terms of the trade? Have we actually costed out what they would be in '95 dollars if they were active in terms of extraction? Has the government done some detailed number crunching when it comes to revenue that may be beneficial to the government in terms of tax
[ Page 13998 ]
revenues that may come out of operations which may very well get active in the area that will now be diverted into a new jurisdiction?
Hon. J. Cashore: All those issues with regard to cost are factored into considerations in the cost-sharing memorandum of understanding. It's for that reason that we continue to push the federal government to meet their commitment in that MOU where just those very issues that the hon. member has mentioned are addressed. We seek to see that happen. We are seeking to see full value from the federal government with regard to their responsibility in the cost-sharing.
I just want to go back to a point that was made a few moments ago, when the hon. member was referencing the standards in forestry on Nisga'a lands. I had been outlining how there's some real concern over the amount of harvesting that has taken place on those lands in the past. Therefore we're talking about harvesting anywhere in the province -- requiring that it be sustainable. But with any logging that goes on within their lands, the province's position has been made very, very clear: we won't sign an agreement in principle that does not either meet or beat our standards. So yes, there are still discussions taking place with regard to that, but they must either meet or beat our standards before we sign an agreement.
G. Wilson: That's encouraging, but I have to say that the problem is that I would think the province will have no jurisdiction with respect to the administration, ongoing assessment, review and analysis of those procedures. All right, you have an agreement that this is what should happen in the best of worlds. In the event that it doesn't happen, what right does this province have to go in and deal with it? Is the province going to have any jurisdiction on that matter, and if so, what would the jurisdiction be?
Hon. J. Cashore: We would not sign an agreement that did not guarantee the monitoring in the treaty, just as I pointed out about an hour ago.
To jump forward to the fish issue for a moment, it's primarily a federal issue. The province has primary concern with regard to conservation, and what we are asking Ministers Tobin and Irwin for is a guarantee that the conservation issues of monitoring and enforcement will be spelled out and guaranteed within the treaty. We think that's another example of how a treaty can serve the interests of all British Columbians -- first nations and non-first nations. We all know that there's a great deal of concern about the lack of monitoring and enforcement on the part of the federal government when it comes to protecting the salmon resource. That is why I and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food travelled to Ottawa to state that if they want any support for the position on fish they're taking to the table, our number one requirement will be that the treaty protection of the conservation values is guaranteed. In the same way, we will seek to have it guaranteed in the treaty that we are able to monitor and enforce the treaty agreements with regard to the stewardship of the land.
G. Wilson: I find this a bit perplexing, because treaties are signed between government, government and government, and that's what we're doing here -- although in another set of this estimates I'd like to come back to my position, which this minister is only too well aware of, and which I won't get into today, in terms of the legality of that negotiation under the laws of Canada and the Constitution Act. But that's another matter.
This government has entered into this agreement. People make these negotiations all the time; you negotiate treaties. Once the treaty is signed, what authority is the federal government going to have to enter Nisga'a lands to determine if there are violations of the act? If they notice violations to the act, are they going to be able to enforce it? Goodness knows, they're reluctant to prosecute aboriginal poachers who are poaching game in British Columbia right now. We had aboriginal people putting gill-nets into a privately stocked lake on the Douglas Lake Ranch and poaching private fish, and the federal government is reluctant to deal with that matter. We've got the Adams Lake blockade, where the federal government was reluctant to even register a title; the aboriginal people in that case got totally ripped off by the original land settlement and James Douglas.
These problems are not new, and I don't know what authority we're going to have to go in and to actually put them in place.
Hon. J. Cashore: The problems are not new. We agree with that. The example of Douglas Lake is a good example. The best eventual resolution of that issue is a treaty: an agreement among Canada, British Columbia and the first nation. The hon. member seems to have this concept of treaties that once a treaty is signed, then there is absolutely exclusive jurisdiction on the part of the first nation with regard to those settlement lands. I assure the hon. member that we will not sign such treaties. We will only sign treaties where we are guaranteed the opportunity to have a right to monitor and enforce those situations that are in the interests of British Columbians, whether it has to do with forest practices, environmental standards or environmental assessment standards. As we all know, the environment -- that which makes up the ecology -- is no respecter of political boundaries; therefore we have to negotiate a process whereby that will ensure that the provincial interest is able to be maintained in the post-treaty time. We won't sign agreements where we are not enabled to do that.
[4:30]
When we say that environmental standards shall meet or beat, we are saying that we must be in a position to protect the interests of British Columbians vis-a-vis those environmental standards. What we see happening at the actual treaty negotiating table are some of the most creative parts, I think, of treaty negotiating, where you have practical people sitting down and asking how we can make it work. There is a recognition of the interest that all parties have in the post-treaty environment in having a role in monitoring and enforcing that which is an agreement of the treaty.
G. Wilson: I don't want to get into the Douglas Lake issue in any detail right now, but surely to goodness we're not going to try to negotiate treaties every time there is an issue where.... In this case it seems that it's a relatively black-and-white one. These are not domestic fish; these are stocked fish; this is private property that's being poached here. You don't need a treaty to say you shouldn't go in and take someone's private property, surely.
It sounds to me as though what the minister is saying in this instance -- I don't know if this is a good analogy; if it isn't,
[ Page 13999 ]
let's drop it -- is that there's going to be a relationship not unlike a landlord-and-tenant situation. I don't mean that to be offensive to the Nisga'a people, because I'm sure they don't see it that way. But if we have the right to go in and to monitor, and we've got some right of recourse and of authority to make sure that, at a minimum, the laws of British Columbia are going to be enforced and maintained on Nisga'a land, I think that is going to be a great relief to a great number of British Columbians -- if that's exactly what the minister is saying. It effectively does put a landlord-tenant kind of relationship to it. It says: "All right, this is your property; you can treat it as though it's fee simple. We still hold title to it, although the title will be given with this underlying Crown title, and whatever our laws are in the province, you're going to have to meet or beat them." I would assume, then, that if we increase our environmental standards through this legislative process, they're going to have to increase theirs; if we determine we're going to put in new forest practices through this legislative process, they're going to have to put new ones through. They're going to be bound by that agreement.
I'm hearing this minister say that if they fail to do it, we can access their lands; we can go in and monitor it; we can check it out, and if they're not doing it, we have some legal right of recourse. I wish the minister could explain to me what that legal right of recourse is going to be.
Hon. J. Cashore: The metaphor I would use, other than the one used by the hon. member, is a partnership. The legal resource will be negotiated into the treaty; there will be an agreement at the table as to how that legal recourse will be assured. When we're talking about getting a comprehensive agreement in principle, that is one of the issues that has to be very clearly worded so that that assurance is there. I do recognize the right of the public to have that assurance. We are requiring that as a condition of finalizing a treaty.
G. Wilson: In effect, what the minister is giving assurance of to the people of British Columbia today is that notwithstanding what is on the table right now, the government of British Columbia will not sign a deal that will not allow, as a minimum standard, the laws of the province of British Columbia to apply. It will be the same law affecting all people, Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a alike, even though they may be the author of their own particular document. Is that what the minister is saying?
Hon. J. Cashore: I wish I had said that myself, because it was well said and absolutely correct.
G. Wilson: Again, I think the people of British Columbia are going to feel a little more comfortable hearing that, because that is an important point that needs to be stressed.
If we could move to fish, which is on page 3.... This was effectively the question I asked in question period today, and I would like to expand on it. Let me read into the record, which the minister may choose to do again if I misquote a line or a word:
"British Columbia will support a Nisga'a commercial entitlement outside of the treaty and will support a 'food fish' entitlement, including sale, provided that:" -- then there are three or more provisions -- "effective measures for monitoring and enforcement are provided for in the treaty; the sale of fish is subject to laws of general application; and all harvest entitlements are provided on a communal basis."
And it says:
"British Columbia will not support a treaty right to surplus salmon.
"Government and industry now recognize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry, and British Columbia feels strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring."
There are two questions that I come to right away. The first is that all harvest entitlements are provided on a communal basis. That's an important line. If we're talking about a food fish entitlement, then maybe the minister might want to clarify how that food fish entitlement is going to be seen on a communal basis, and how there may be a commercial entitlement outside of this treaty in addition to that -- which might also be provided on a communal basis. Because that's what this says. It says that all of these harvest entitlements must be subject to that communal basis.
So you've got two: you've got a commercial entitlement outside of the treaty, and you've got a food fish inside the treaty, which are, by the wording of this particular document -- although I recognize this is not legislation, by any means -- provided on a communal basis. I don't understand how that's going to work.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the communal basis, I think the word describes it. We are not doing this in a way that's allocating in the treaty specific entitlements to individuals. But we are looking at this -- perhaps the word "generic" -- with that first nation.... With regard to the elements that he referred to -- commercial entitlement outside the treaty -- we would see that as being outside of the treaty, so that the federal Minister of Fisheries would be in a position to, on an annual basis, ascertain the availability of stocks for that purpose. As I said before, if we are to support the treaty protection of the sale of food fish, we are expecting a quid pro quo from the federal government to support our position on conservation -- meaning monitoring and enforcement, and not just some airy-fairy indication. Yes, we agree with this. We want it spelled out. We want it very clear to the citizens of British Columbia, in the interests of non-Nisga'a and Nisga'a, that they will do a much better job; that it's spelled out in the treaty as to how they will monitor and enforce this issue.
We seek to ensure, as it says here, that the sale is subject to the laws of general application, so anything that is involved there is subject to the provincial law. But the number one consideration has to be conservation.
G. Wilson: Let me go on record as saying I've toured the Nisga'a fish hatchery. I understand that the Nass River is better for their efforts, and I don't take anything away from what they're attempting to do. But I think this, probably more than any other issue that is raised in these documents -- no matter how clandestine the efforts were to get them -- is really going to cause a lot of problems in the province. The minister, I think, is aware of that. What it says is...this business of trading off food fish.... I just don't see where there's the trade. The courts have made it very clear with respect to the Sparrow ruling on the food fish entitlement. Where we run into real difficulty is in the definition of what constitutes food fish. There's the problem. What this agreement is saying is that in addition to that -- which is already, under DFO interpretation, quite different from the fishers of the province, who see it quite differently, and which various bands will interpret
[ Page 14000 ]
in their own way quite differently -- we're saying that we're going to look at a commercial entitlement. So there are two aspects of this.
I don't know what the trading chip is here, because everybody wants conservation; that's a given. There's no question that we have to try and do something about the west coast salmon stocks before they're gone. But the method by which licensing occurs right now is not communal; it's done on an individual basis or by boat. You've got aboriginal people in the commercial fishing fleet who are also going to have.... It'll be a second component. There will be the commercial entitlement, presumably within the AFS -- the aboriginal fish strategy -- a very controversial issue and one that many of us think is abhorrent and shouldn't be there. And then you're going to have a food fish entitlement, given the vagaries of the definition of that.
The minister has to be very specific as to what is meant by this, because on the one hand, you're saying that British Columbia won't support the treaty right to surplus salmon. If that's the case, and if we're looking at the enforcement provided with respect to conservation, I would guess that when this document is interpreted there isn't going to be any salmon left for non-aboriginal fishermen on the Nass system. Basically you're negotiating the agreement for all salmon. I don't know how you can reconcile what is a commercial fishery, a food fishery and a conservation fishery that's bound by this treaty for first nations Nisga'a.
Hon. J. Cashore: The aboriginal fishing strategy of the federal government could be characterized as an interim measure. It's a process the federal government has come up with to deal with certain aspects of Sparrow, and I know there's a lot of controversy over their interpretation of that. There's no way that the AFS and the circumstances in a Nisga'a treaty would be layered. The AFS would no longer apply. It would not apply in the post-treaty circumstances. As a matter of fact, I'm not absolutely certain -- my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could advise me -- to what extent it currently applies on the Nass river. It's my understanding that the major application is on the Fraser. But this is a fisheries issue that I readily recognize is not my main area of expertise. I do know that to whatever extent the AFS may now be a player in the federal government's relationship with the Nisga'a, in the post-treaty environment the AFS would be toast -- it would be history.
G. Wilson: It would be history, because it wouldn't be necessary. This effectively provides both commercial and food fish opportunities through a treaty negotiation which is, from what I can see...and I would yield to those who may know more about it than I do. I have spent a lot of time studying AFS and the Sparrow decision, and have met with many, many fishers on this coast who are coming out of Prince Rupert and areas in that region, as well as out of the Fraser system and the Island. Every one of them to an individual agrees that there has to be one set of laws that apply evenly and equally to all British Columbians -- aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike -- when it comes to access to this resource. Otherwise there isn't going to be access to this resource for non-aboriginal people. And that's going to cause a problem, because there are a lot of communities whose livelihoods are dependent on that.
Before anything is signed, I we need to have a much more thorough public discussion with respect to this particular section. I would hope that the minister would agree today that there won't be any signature to this document until the implications of what's put forward in the wording is thoroughly and properly discussed with the people who will be most affected by that, and it's the people who are the commercial fishers in the province. I wonder if the minister could give us that assurance, and then we can move on.
[4:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: I have met with the commercial fishers. I know what their issues are. I've met with them through the context of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee. Our negotiators have met with them on a very thorough basis -- regular meetings. Documents have been discussed in very recent days with members representing the commercial fishing industry. As it states, government and industry now recognize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia. It feels strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring.
As I've said, and I think it should be acknowledged.... I would hope that the hon. member and other hon. members would join us in the message that we are taking to Ottawa: they must put in place in the treaty the actual method by which they will follow through on our requirement that they monitor and enforce in the interests of conservation. I don't entirely agree with the member when he says everybody believes in conservation. I know that he's right in saying that this is a value that is very widely held; that is true. But at the same time, I am saying that I am concerned. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned about the adequacy of the federal government resources that have gone into monitoring and enforcement in the interests of the protection of the fish stocks in the province. We think, therefore, that putting this there is a condition of British Columbia's support for a position that they are engaging in discussions about with the commercial fishing industry and the Nisga'a. It is a very valuable opportunity to protect a conservation interest within this province. It also sends a signal that this is going to be expected within the tripartite agreements relating to other treaties.
G. Wilson: I wish I could share the enthusiasm that the minister has with respect to the possibilities of getting the federal government to look at that conservation side. Quite clearly, through successive governments, the west coast fishery has been allowed to deplete further and further. Now they're spending more time worrying about the future political ambitions of the Minister of Fisheries, off fighting his turbot wars to give himself a high profile so that he might ascend to the ultimate job over in Ottawa, which is my suspicion. I think he's running for the leadership. If I was Mr. Chretien, I might look behind me.
Having said that, I think that what we have to recognize is that this agreement is going to be extremely difficult for British Columbians who are dependent on the fishery to swallow. My guess is that they're not going to, because they have no confidence, notwithstanding the province.... They may in fact have every confidence in the province; I don't know. In fact, I doubt they do. But they certainly have no confidence in the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to look after their interests in this negotiation. So I really hope that the minister will commit that this section of the agreement, if no
[ Page 14001 ]
other -- and I would argue that of the whole agreement -- will not go forward until such time as it has the widespread agreement of the people in the industry, and those communities that are affected by it, so that we can at least, as a province, recognize that we are extremely vulnerable with respect to the loss of our fishery. If the minister would agree that there would be some process for ratification of that, I think this would be something that we would all like to hear about today.
Hon. J. Cashore: As we go through the process, as I said before, we are in very close consultation with the industry -- with the fishers. I have gone to the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee and called on the federal government to join us in removing the clause there that requires secrecy or confidentiality. Therefore I've met with them, with the media present, and we have discussed this issue in a very open forum, as is also happening in the regional advisory committee relationship up in the area that relates to the Nisga'a settlement. So those discussions are ongoing.
I want to recognize and acknowledge the people who are involved in consultation from the fisheries sector. They advocate very firmly and very effectively on behalf of their interests. They also recognize that in the context of doing that, in order to get a treaty, there are quid pro quos. We're discussing that with them, and we're talking openly about those kinds of arrangements. I can say I'm going to be very certain and assured with regard to the position that we are taking forward, based on consultations that we have had with the fisheries sector and with other sectors who also have an interest in this. The very nature of negotiations is that you work out a settlement which is in everybody's interest. There are some things that you put on the table. There are some things that you have to be able to negotiate in order to get an agreement, and that factor exists for all aspects of this. That's why I keep emphasizing that our number one concern is conservation, and we won't agree to a deal where conservation is not assured.
G. Wilson: I've just got three other areas. I know there are other members who may want to get in on this particular issue. One is the question of access, which is on page 3. It talks about British Columbians requiring "that non-Nisga'as have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes." Well, I have two questions. One, who is going to determine what amounts to reasonable access, and if that is going to be negotiated, what are our terms of reference in that negotiation? What are our negotiators mandated to put on the table for what's reasonable? And second, if there's a question of public lands, and given that this is an agreement that is being provided for fee simple ownership on a communal basis, what would the minister then regard as private lands?
Hon. J. Cashore: The difference between community lands and public lands would be as follows: generally, the community lands would be where the houses are, where people have their community; the public lands would be those lands beyond the community, so they would be the lands that aren't the locations of their communities.
With regard to the question about what would be defined as reasonable access, again, that would be spelled out in the treaty. But I refer the hon. member to the commitment that the Premier has made with regard to access. This is one of the fundamental principles that the Premier announced in September -- that access will be assured -- and therefore we recognize, in negotiating on behalf of all British Columbians, that that has to be.... The final result of the treaty has to be stated in a very clear way to ensure the commitment we have made that access will be assured.
G. Wilson: So in terms of public lands, the public is going to have the same authority and weight of law as it would if they were Crown lands -- for example, in terms of access for British Columbians.
Hon. J. Cashore: If I understand the question, I think the answer is yes. There would be access to their Crown lands in the same sense that they would have access to our Crown lands.
G. Wilson: The question is fairly straightforward. That is an area in which there is considerable hunting, fishing and other recreational activities -- backpacking, hiking, those sorts of things. What I'm saying is that right now British Columbians enjoy the right to access Crown lands for all sorts of recreational activities -- and by a variety of different means of entry. I can see that there may be some restrictions on four-wheel drive vehicles, for example, as we have now for forest roads if we're attempting to do closures. In some sensitive winter habitats there are some restrictions with respect to skidoos and those kinds of things. I can understand why there would be some habitat-sensitive limits. All I'm saying is: is it anticipated that all those lands will be accessible to Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a, on an equal basis, subject to the same kinds of considerations that exist right now on Crown lands?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, recognizing that there would be some restrictions for various purposes on Nisga'a land, and some restrictions on non-Nisga'a land, depending on ecological considerations or whatever those considerations might be. We would ensure that within the treaty there are provisions that guarantee easy access both ways. We do recognize that within the Nisga'a lands there will be areas that they will wish to have managed in a certain way because of some particular interest or enterprise that they have with regard to that land.
G. Wilson: Let's deal with access for the purpose of hunting. We know that many of the animals that hunters would like to go after for sport and for food in that area -- this is both for non-aboriginal and aboriginal, because many non-aboriginal people in the north also hunt to supplement their food -- are migratory in nature; they will be in certain habitats at certain times of the year for a variety of reasons. Is there going to be a licensing requirement for hunters that would be separate and distinct from the licensing requirements of British Columbia? If so, who would have regulatory authority over that? Who would determine who has eligibility to get a licence and who doesn't with respect to accessing that wildlife?
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be jointly managed. We expect that it would be acknowledged within the treaty that in the context of that being jointly managed, they would have the opportunity to handle their own licensing system on Nisga'a land.
[ Page 14002 ]
G. Wilson: As I understand it, then, a hunting licence that you get from the province would not apply to the lands that would be excluded as a result of this particular agreement. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: It could apply by agreement. Again, that is an issue to be discussed and negotiated, but it could apply by agreement.
G. Wilson: This is, by a different academic adventure, something that I have a good deal of interest in as a legal and jurisdictional question. Because of the migratory nature of many of these animals -- especially if we're dealing with access to a variety of birds that would be used for hunting in winter and in off-season months, as well as a number of the larger ungulates in that area -- what is the negotiated position of this government with respect to jurisdiction or authority over those animals? It's a strange question, but it's an important one. Who has jurisdiction over those resources?
[5:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: The province does.
G. Wilson: So the province is effectively going to be the principal agency for conservation, maintenance and habitat management -- notwithstanding that there may be, via Sparrow, a right to hunt and fish, and that the province is still going to have a jurisdiction that would prohibit the taking of particular species at particular times of the year, much as they do now, even though those animals may be, in fact, for fallowing, grazing or whatever reasons, actually on Nisga'a land. Is that right?
Hon. J. Cashore: The province would certainly be the authority on this with regard to managing the resource, recognizing, as is pointed out in Sparrow, that conservation is the basic factor here. But there could be, for instance, a joint advisory board that would involve parties from both the Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a that would advise as we fulfil our managerial responsibility. I would just like to read from a document relating to fishing, hunting and recreation, on key negotiating positions of this province: "The province will retain final authority for wildlife conservation and management decisions in British Columbia."
G. Wilson: That's useful, good information once again, because I think that's an area of significant concern. How that's going to be managed, what kind of jurisdiction there is going to be with Nisga'a government and the question of taxation is, I guess, determined by page 4. We've been through a fair bit of that, so I don't intend to go back through it. I wonder if the minister might just give us a succinct response to a question on the lips of a lot of British Columbians, which is: what is the mandated position with respect to the provincial government's negotiators on the question of inherent right to self-government? What does the minister include in the powers of self-government? What does the minister -- and this is the more important part -- expressly exclude in terms of the power of self-government? What are the negotiators mandated to negotiate at the table on that question?
Hon. J. Cashore: We envision self-government arrangements that would deal with basic services. I think we see some examples of that in British Columbia now, with regard to the Sechelt and some self-government arrangements that have been made around child care, child protection, health and that sort of thing. There's some body of experience now that recognizes self-government arrangements.
I just want to mention a few things with regard to self-government mandates. Jurisdictional certainty between first nations, local government, the provincial government and the federal government will be clearly spelled out. Treaty negotiations will not result in independent sovereign states in British Columbia. That is not on; that is not acceptable; that will not be agreed to. The constitution and the Charter of Rights will continue to apply to all British Columbians. The province will ensure access, as we have pointed out before. The culturally specific laws made by an aboriginal government will not apply to non-aboriginals living on settlement lands. The authorities of aboriginal governments will be limited to treaty settlement lands. The province will require comparable standards for program delivery, and will recognize the primary federal responsibility for funding aboriginal governments and programs for aboriginal people.
The other thing I might just refer to here is that the province recognizes the importance of first nations taking control over certain areas of interest in their communities and designing programs to meet the particular needs of their communities. Jurisdiction of first nations for their citizens on treaty settlement land will likely include such areas as family and child services, education, health and culture. The province will ensure the maintenance of provincewide standards in treaty settlements in areas such as education, social services, labour laws, consumer protection, health and safety, motor vehicle licensing and traffic regulations, housing, environmental protection and assessment, fish and wildlife management and land use planning and zoning.
G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might give us an example of a cultural-specific law, other than what may be defined within the general agreements on Sparrow in terms of access to resources or provision of language protection, which, I would argue, applies to virtually every immigrant in Canada who wants to protect and maintain their own language.
Hon. J. Cashore: Examples, in answer to that question, would be laws pertaining to adoption and to native language and laws with regard to cultural artefacts.
G. Wilson: I think the minister is aware of the difficulty I have with this question of cultural-specific laws. I don't want to get into a long, philosophical debate, but one recognizes that throughout the world now, we are trying to get away from laws that are written on the basis of one group being covered and others not. We're trying to write laws in a manner that applies equally and evenly to all citizens. Language is something that is protected even now within the provision of Charter rights in the constitution. So I would argue that there is no need to negotiate anything specific or separate on the matter of language; those language rights are already provided for in the Canadian constitution.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
The laws with respect to the matter of adoption need to, I would say, apply evenly, fairly and equally to all citizens. The
[ Page 14003 ]
attempt or effort by which we are implementing specific-matter law on adoption is going to be extremely controversial. I understand why we're doing it; don't get me wrong. I know the history of this issue, so I understand why that's being done. But I think that in future generations we are going to find that that is going to be a real problem for us. We should not have laws that are distinctive by the nature of who they apply to and who they don't, on the basis of some membership in a group, especially when that's determined on the basis of race.
I am cognizant of the comments the minister made in Kelowna. In fact, I appreciate the fact that his staff gave me his Kelowna speech. I would argue that it isn't a question of people being profoundly ignorant on that question. This is a very, very serious question. It's one that many thoughtful people in British Columbia who are not in any way seeking to inflame or to incite racism or racist comments have a concern about.
I think that in this agreement the province.... I would like to hear the minister tell us.... I've been on it for some time now, and I think there are other members who want to get on their feet, and in the course of these estimates I will have an opportunity to more thoroughly explore matters of taxation -- particularly land tax for non-aboriginals living on aboriginal land; that is a big issue I would like to cover. I understand that there are many other questions in these estimates. Will the minister confirm whether there's going to be a June 1995 proposal completion date and if it's the intention of the minister, before this agreement is signed, to bring it before this House for debate and final ratification? I would argue that, at the very least, there are four statutes that will have to be amended to allow it to apply. There may be many more that I haven't even looked at. It's really important, if we are to keep this parliament current and relevant to the people of British Columbia, that the minister commit to whatever agreement is signed coming before this House prior to its signature for thorough debate and proper passage.
Hon. J. Cashore: The agreement in principle would be initialled and then go out for public review, and we would seek input on it. Where the member refers to ratification, which is the fifth step in the six-stage process, prior to ratification in the Legislature there would have been a public review. But it would go out to public review after the initialling of the AIP.
G. Wilson: Can the minister tell us...? What if the public says: "No way, thank you. Renegotiate"? Are they precluded from renegotiation if you've already signed an agreement in principle?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, you can have change. It happened in the Yukon; there is precedent for it.
G. Wilson: I have one last question, and I'll yield to other members and come back in these estimates to other questions on matters not related to the Nisga'a. Having had that public review, and the agreement in principle is out there, does the minister then commit that this agreement will come before this assembly for full debate and discussion, particularly in reference to the cost implications to British Columbia? Can and will that be reviewed in the financial estimates of this government? I don't believe that anywhere in this set of financial estimates, either in this ministry or through the Ministry of Finance -- which would be the more appropriate place to ask these questions, and they will be asked -- are any moneys identified for a settlement of this magnitude in the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: The treaty will come to the House for debate. That is what happens at stage 5 prior to ratification. The treaty itself comes to the House for debate after the AIP has gone out for public review.
With regard to the question of the budget, one of the concerns I had with estimates, when they did take place, was that.... Many of these issues have been canvassed in the very thorough questions of the Liberal Aboriginal Affairs critic. We have dealt with this question, but I'll just say briefly that the moneys in this fiscal year's budget are for the costs of negotiations. We do not expect to achieve final settlements during this fiscal year; therefore there are no moneys budgeted for the cost of treaty settlements in this fiscal year. In the vast majority of cases we see that being a long way away. But when the year comes that we anticipate we will be getting treaty settlements, then we will need to budget, based on the realization that these are not lump sum payments, that they would be payments that would be handled over an agreed upon period of time, and it would be absolutely essential that they be consistent with the fiscal plan of the government, which has removed the deficit and is on track for making significant inroads into paying down the debt.
D. Jarvis: It's been a long day; I don't envy the minister.
I want to ask a few questions, being just a humble man from the North Shore wanting to know answers to some of these questions on this Nisga'a settlement. I appreciate that in some way maybe they're not part of the estimates, but I understand the minister has virtually tabled it in the House already. So I was wondering if he could relate some answers to me, because I feel that this is probably going to be a very precedent-setting agreement, as has been said before. There is a great deal of concern out there. The minister is well known as an advocate for the aboriginals in this province, and I feel he's done a good job in that sense. In another sense, I think he's done an abysmal job relating to what the province is doing on the settlement with the aboriginals. Everywhere I go, there are questions from people feeling that this province is giving away the wealth of the province to the aboriginals. He's probably aware of it, too, because people keep throwing it at him all the time.
[5:15]
I had a couple of questions, and I don't believe they've been talked about today, and if they have, they're just follow-up to the answers on them. One was a question on the land aspect of this agreement. You mentioned a phrase in a statement there: "more land, less cash." In my previous occupation, I've never sold more land and received less cash, and I'm wondering how he went about it. Nevertheless, I was under the assumption that the settlements between the federal government....
An Hon. Member: What was your previous occupation?
D. Jarvis: I was in real estate sales, my friend, and when I sold more land, I never asked for less cash, so that's why I was wondering about your statement.
[ Page 14004 ]
I was under the assumption that settlements with the aboriginals were on a federal-provincial basis and were going to be on an 83-17 split. In this down here, you say that there will be.... This is when you came up with that statement one of the other members was talking about, that if there's more land, there's going to be less cash, or vice versa. In that statement that you made there, are you saying there's going to be more cash over and above the 17 percent, or more land over and above the 17 percent? Or are we still categorized into that 83-17 figure that I assumed was going on?
Hon. J. Cashore: The 83-17 is based on projections that at the end of the day, when all the treaties are settled, that is the anticipated split. There is no formula that says that in each treaty there's an 83-17 split. I've never said that, and that has not been said. I recognize that this issue is extremely complex, and I don't fault the hon. member for not being aware of that.
The cost-sharing memorandum of understanding has been negotiated to deal with all treaty settlements throughout the province under the Treaty Commission, and at the end of the day, we anticipate that would be the split.
D. Jarvis: Under the land aspect of this agreement, you stated in here that the Nisga'a lands would become fee simple. I wonder about fee simple. I've always understood that this means that the land would revert back to the Crown at any time with failure to pay taxes or anything like that. I also understood that the aboriginals were not prepared to make a settlement if the negotiations for their lands would be on a fee simple basis. Could you give me a further interpretation on that?
Hon. J. Cashore: We did address this earlier this afternoon, but I think the hon. member is quoting something I said rather than something that was in the leaked document. Is that correct? I just want to clarify that. I'm not trying to confuse the member; I'm just trying to clarify what he's referencing. I think he's referencing a reference I made earlier to it being fee simple land. If he could just clarify that for me, then I'll include it in my answer.
D. Jarvis: In the third paragraph of that section under land, it says here: "British Columbia will stand by its proposals of minor adjustments to reserve boundaries outside Nisga'a land -- which reserves would become fee simple lands -- and to create a limited number of...fee simple sites."
Hon. J. Cashore: I was completely not on the same track that the hon. member was on, so I appreciate him clarifying that for me.
His question is: how do we characterize those fee simple lands? As I explained earlier, I think this clause was misinterpreted by the federal Reform Party -- whether wilfully or not, I don't know -- to indicate: "Ah, after all, fee simple land is on the table." If that was their interpretation of that clause, then that was really wrong and not helpful. What this is about refers to a point I made earlier today, which is that our vision is that all aboriginal lands -- settlement lands, including what are currently Indian reserves -- would cease to be Indian reserves, cease to be under the jurisdiction of the federal government and would become fee simple land within the province. In other words, what is currently an Indian reserve would no longer be an Indian reserve; it would become fee simple land within the province, which would have the underlay of Crown title within the province. That is our negotiating position. There are some small IRs outside the area under negotiation for settlement, and what this refers to is that those current Indian reserves would become fee simple land.
I think everybody agrees with that. Well, let me put that a different way. I think most British Columbians agree with that, because, as we have said, we want to see an end to the tax-exemption status. We believe that with the opportunities for community improvement, for economic interdependence and those sorts of things which come out of treaties, those peoples will want to be in a position where they are able to pay their fair share of taxes. When we had that discussion earlier, I also hastened to mention that aboriginal people pay a lot of taxes now; but it is true that there is an exemption in certain circumstances. We seek to see that end; we seek to see an end to the federal Indian Act as a result of treaty negotiations; we seek to see a new relationship which is more productive.
Therefore we think -- what we are saying -- that part of that relationship is that their lands would become the equivalent of fee simple land in the province. We're not saying that as a weasel word; it shouldn't be misunderstood. It would have all the effect of fee simple land in the sense that it's underlaid by Crown title, but because of some of the collective aspects of aboriginal society, we are using the term that it would be equivalent to fee simple land.
D. Jarvis: I think I get what you're trying to lay out. Our party has always -- and I've always -- discussed it on the premise that my property is fee simple, so why should the aboriginals not have fee simple to their land? However, the Crown is the overlaying thing. For example, if I don't pay taxes, the Crown can come and take my land from me. Are we going to get into the same situation with the aboriginal area -- which is basically what? It's not a sovereign state, as you say. No one knows what it is. It's not a homeland. How are you going to describe it? How are you going to keep it separate and apart but still say they are responsible to the Crown, which is still the underlying body of government? As you said before, they're not going to be paying taxes. Although, further in your report -- or not your report; pardon me -- it says here on taxes that they will be recognizing the Nisga'a government's authority to impose direct taxes on Nisga'a citizens and on Nisga'a lands. Do you mean it's like a municipal government imposing taxes on them, or are they going to have to pay British Columbia taxes? I know I asked three or four questions there. I don't know if you can remember them all. In other words -- quickly, going back out -- what are you going to call this? It's not a homeland; it's not a sovereign state; it's the Nisga'a land. Are they subject to the provincial government's taxation laws?
L. Fox: The same as a regional district.
D. Jarvis: The same as a regional district, as the member for Prince George-Omineca said. I'll leave it at that for the moment.
Hon. J. Cashore: Our position is that they would pay municipal-type taxes to themselves, and they would pay the appropriate federal and provincial taxes the same as everybody else. That's what we want. We want to bring an end to this.
[ Page 14005 ]
I want to say this. I have been really concerned to hear that the Liberal Party does not appear to be rejecting the argument that the treaty-making process would result in something akin to the homelands in South Africa. I really find that quite abhorrent. This treaty-making process is seeking to build a new and honourable relationship. That's not advocacy for first nations any more than it's advocacy for people who are taxpayers in Canada and in British Columbia seeking to find a relationship where that which is now not defined is defined, and where we can do the kind of thing that we've been talking about. I sometimes think that the opposition can hardly believe that we're putting these positions out there. We're putting out the position that we want to see an end to the section 87 tax exemption. We want to do that in a negotiated way that recognizes the incremental time it would take to do that.
With regard to taxes, the answer is yes, we want these negotiations to result in a kind of economic independence that enables these people, who wish to become a part of British Columbia and a part of Canada, to do that.
The comparison to the South African homelands fails in so many categories that I think that any party in this House should take the opportunity to repudiate the idea that the process we've entered into has anything akin to it. I notice that point number one of the new Liberal policy with regard to the settlement of treaties is that the Liberal Party accepts the position of the province of British Columbia in entering the treaty-making process under the B.C. Treaty Commission. That means, therefore, that the provincial Liberal Party accepts the points in the task force report. Within the points that have been accepted in the task force report, I think, are all of the considerations that we are seeking to use in order to build this new and honourable relationship. So the idea that there may be something in this process that's akin to homelands is really unfortunate. As a matter of fact, when South Africa was in the process of looking at ending their homelands policy, they were looking at some of the circumstances in Canada at that time. Let's recognize this: in the homelands situation of South Africa, very often people were forced, without any negotiation or consultation, to travel many, many hundreds of miles from what was really their traditional land into areas where they were often forced to be in communities with people that they had no previous connection with. There was no consultation or negotiation on that; that was laid on them. This is a totally different premise. We're talking here about people having a role in negotiations that have to do with lands that they deem to be traditional territory. This is a whole relationship that's based on partnership, respect and honour. To somehow compare this with the dishonourable events in South Africa that we now see have ended is really unfortunate.
[5:30]
D. Jarvis: I don't know how we got onto this political discussion of South Africa and homelands, Mr. Minister, because the by-election is over, so we don't have to be political in that sense. I simply mentioned homeland, as you mentioned sovereign state. I have never said -- and we have never said as a party -- that we feel that you are creating homelands. You're getting us mixed up with one of those second, third, fourth or fifth parties down there.
In any event, I want to know that the people out there.... This is where you've fallen down, if we can be political: you have not explained it to them. People out there do not know what's going on. Most people are in agreement. They want to see the aboriginals equal to us, with no divisions whatsoever. The first thing you always hear them say is: "Why don't they pay taxes like everyone else?" You're saying that this is what's going to happen, so that's settled.
You could go on to every item you can think of, but we all agree that they should have their reserve land and have fee simple title to it, like I have title to my land and my next-door neighbour has title to his. The aboriginals should be entitled to that. Everyone agrees with that, provided they pay taxes and we get rid of the Indian Act, and all the rest of it. People want to see aboriginals equal to them, provided they have the same pluses and minuses that the other people in this province have.
We don't want to segregate them into a homeland or anything like that. When you say Nisga'a land, I'm trying to find out what you mean. Is this a new classification? This is going to be the precedent-setting formula for the rest of the aboriginal nations in this province. So that is what the situation is. You have not given us what the classification is going to be. We're not saying we want them segregated into their homelands or into a sovereign state or anything like that. All we're asking is that you give us the definition for it.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: I have given very clear definitions. Other members in the House have acknowledged that the definitions I have given have been clear. Opposition members have acknowledged that in the context of today's discussion. We canvassed these same questions earlier when the member was not in the House. I have answered this question, but out of respect to the member I will say it again. We are seeking that the lands that would end up as Nisga'a lands would be equivalent to fee simple. In other words, to consider the points that he was making earlier from his real estate experience, it would be possible, on a collective basis, to use lands in order to achieve collateral. And all the legal framework that obtains around that would also obtain. So we are seeking an end to the paternalistic, unworkable, inappropriate situation of the federal government holding lands in trust. We are seeking a new relationship where the first nations peoples would be the holders of the title to their land. We have been using the term "settlement lands," for want of a better term. We might end up using some other term in the long run. I don't think that really matters; I think what really matters is that we're seeing the end -- it's the position of this government -- to the inappropriate, paternalistic relationship in which lands were held in trust by the federal government. We want to see the Nisga'a, in this case, have the kind of usefulness of their land to enable them to have collateral when they seek to develop their business opportunities.
D. Jarvis: I appreciate the minister trying to say that he's trying to get away from that definition of IR lands. Could you give me an interpretation as to what private property rights are? What's the definition of that if they are not included in the settlements with the aboriginal nations? Does that include licences? Does that include leases?
[ Page 14006 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Our position is that private property is not on the table. We went through this very thoroughly yesterday, and I notice the Aboriginal Affairs critic is agreeing, so I would refer my comment of yesterday to the hon. member.
A. Warnke: I just want to interject, because I heard my colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour and I paid some very close attention to his remarks. The reference to homelands has to be very, very carefully used. I'm sure my friend knows that; the way I heard him use that particular phrase is no different than many aboriginals who have also referred to that particular term. In no way did I hear my esteemed colleague refer to the term "homelands" in a context that could be construed as similar to the homelands as defined in the South African case.
I made it vividly clear in one of my remarks on Friday, when I made my opening statement.... I thought I'd made a very elaborate statement, using Prof. Menno Boldt's arguments in that particular case, where the term as used in the South African case.... The whole South African model does not really apply. In no way did I hear my colleague say anything that would contradict that. Quite the contrary, anything that my colleague said was quite compatible with what I outlined on Friday.
Hon. J. Cashore: I do appreciate the hon. member clarifying that, because in reading Hansard, there are some lines there that leave his position on homelands a very open question. I'm sure that if he goes back to Hansard and reads them.... I'll just read one part of it in reference to that, where the hon. member says:
"While all of that is essential to understand, there is one argument that I would like to address briefly, as well, that has been put forward from time to time, and it's a valid argument. If we're moving toward a system of establishing homelands for aboriginal peoples, are we not replicating something that we've seen in South Africa?"
My interpretation of where the hon. member said, "It's a valid argument," meant that he was saying that he felt that we should seriously consider this argument in the context of the ebb and flow of discussion and debate on this issue. So I take the hon. member at his word. I appreciate having given him the opportunity to clarify statements that are on the record and that could be misunderstood.
A. Warnke: I thank the hon. minister for what could certainly appear as a misleading statement. I thought I had made it very clear that there is an argument for that that has been expressed in British Columbia. There is certainly a strong argument against that. I'm sure in the public record.... I recall having made a statement in public that conforms perfectly with Menno Boldt's argument. That's what I thought I was putting forward. When I used the term "valid," that did not mean validity, or that somehow this was a true application. That, in fact, is an argument that is out there. It has some logic and consistency in terms of how the argument has been presented.
In terms of accepting that principle as a basis upon which we approach the whole question of treaty negotiations, obviously there was a misinterpretation of my remarks at that particular time. Again, if that is a basis of some sort of confusion as to what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour put forward a little while ago, then I would suggest that what clearly needs to be done is to re-examine the original statement as put on Friday.
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to say that I appreciate the opposition Aboriginal Affairs critic's statement. I take it in good faith, and I do recognize in the light of his explanation how those remarks could be misinterpreted. But I do take what he's saying in good faith, that in his explanation of what he'd said at that time, that misinterpretation was not was he was seeking to say, and I'm very pleased to hear that. I think we need to be very clear when that argument comes up; this is 180 degrees different, actually.
D. Jarvis: Going back to the minister again, talking about what I said about private property, I assume the minister has agreed that licences and leases, etc., are interpreted as private property. So I want to know, then -- under the subsurface resources section, paragraph 1, where it says British Columbia will stand by its proposal that the Nisga'a will own all subsurface resources on Nisga'a lands, including oil, gas, and precious metals -- how he would handle the situation if there were leases and licences to other parties. Would they be excluded, would they be negotiated to be bought, or would there have to be an arrangement between the Nisga'a and those people that hold the licences? How is that going to be interpreted?
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to clarify that I did not say -- there's no place in the record where I said -- that licences and leases fit into the definition of private property. We are saying that fee simple land is not on the table; that's what we have said. Given that the Liberal party has indicated its acceptance of the treaty process, I think we would perhaps have some interesting discussion about what is left in the context of negotiations, given those restrictions. So that is something that I think would be subject to future discussion.
I will take note of the question the hon. member has asked; it's on the record. But I would like at this time to 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. Wilson: I seek leave to table a private member's statement.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
[ Page 14007 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:41 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 44: minister's office, $360,624 (continued).
D. Mitchell: I'd like to thank the minister for passing over statistics that answer some questions raised earlier this morning, in particular those dealing with consumer complaints and inquiries to the ministry for the last fiscal year.
The statistics she's provided show that 75 percent of the enquiries come from Vancouver and the lower mainland. I wonder if the minister would care to comment if there is an indication that the ministry needs to reach out further into the regions of the province outside of the lower mainland, or is there some other explanation for the fact that three-quarters of the inquiries would come from the Vancouver area?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The information the member has with regard to the different regions is actually the focus of the offices. There are offices, or investigators, in Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Cranbrook. The question as to outreach and serving those areas is valid. In particular, the issue in the high-growth areas of the interior, and the pressure there, is significant, as it is for most government services. For example, the enhancements in residential tenancy -- we've talked about how large that marketplace is and the issues that need service and support -- I think is a good reflection of the debate that we have in the public. At one point we all recognized the need for good service in dealing with those issues; the flip side of that coin is the ability of taxpayers to meet the enhancements which are necessary to hire additional staff and open bigger offices.
[2:45]
It is my hope -- in particular on the consumer protection side, though I don't mean to pick that area over others -- to emphasize the growth not only in complaints but in the power of consumers to organize and be better informed. This is why we have taken the strategy of developing consumer alerts and education packages to try to prevent scams by arming consumers with good information so that they can judge ahead of time.
Like most ministries in government, we would like to be able to enhance our ability to serve. But having said that, I think that the strategy we have deployed is an effective one in that it is preventive.
D. Mitchell: I accept what the minister is saying. I can only do what I think other members of the assembly and this committee would likely want to do, which would be to encourage the ministry to provide all British Columbians with the same kinds of opportunities to come forward with complaints or inquiries as consumers or concerned citizens when it comes to housing and the need for affordable housing.
The figures and the statistics provided certainly show that residents and consumers in Vancouver and the lower mainland -- the major media centre of the province, I guess we could call it -- have developed a heightened awareness of these kinds of issues. But all British Columbians, whether they're living in urban or rural communities, are consumers and are in need of affordable housing. They also need to have the same kinds of opportunities. So I agree with what the minister said, but I would hope that the ministry might be able to reach out a little bit more effectively.
The statistics provided by the minister with respect to the debtor assistance program are also quite interesting. I note that they're broken down in terms of three offices: Greater Vancouver, Kamloops and Victoria. I can only assume that those are the three offices maintained by the ministry. Can I ask the minister, because it's interesting...? There seems to be a somewhat better balance when it comes to debtor assistance caseloads, interviews and debt collection complaints...but does the Kamloops office, in the minister's opinion, service the whole interior and northern portion of the province adequately?
Hon. J. Smallwood: It's a very interesting line of questioning.
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll give you an address to write to.
I want to, first of all, make the point that the staff in the Kamloops office do travel and provide support to other communities in dealing with a number of issues. When you look at the percentages for the Vancouver-Victoria catchment area -- the lower part of the province -- they are very similar in comparison to the consumer services caseload in the rest of the province.
It's interesting, because the situation we find ourselves in is not only.... If you look at it in a historic context, for both consumer services and debtor assistance, I would venture to say that when the previous NDP government was in place, many of these programs were created. The consumer services legislation was tabled with the NDP government, and since that time, because of the philosophy in the province of consumer beware -- or laissez faire -- there's no role for government in helping to level that playing field. Many of the resources for serving these programs have been greatly underfunded.
When you look at the growth of the marketplace compared to the growth of the budget in these particular areas in this ministry, they most certainly have not kept up. In particular, they have not been in a position to reach out and deal with many of the preventive programs which enable the community and individuals to be more informed and more able to deal with their own issues. So we are engaged in a reform agenda in dealing with these issues. Included in that is a higher profile. But at a time when government is dealing with its expenditures, there has not been additional money and resources to open new offices and hire new staff.
The areas off the lower mainland should be recognized and complimented for the amount of outreach that our inspectors and staff do in these offices in providing workshops and seminars for community groups, dealing with individual cases and/or complaints and dealing with very significant
[ Page 14008 ]
court challenges. One of the most significant in the province in the last very short while was a charge brought against a home renovator, where he actually got a year in prison for his activities. That's fairly unprecedented. That came out of the Okanagan, in the Cranbrook area.
While I think the numbers reflect to some extent the size of the marketplace and population breakdown, I think that we have to credit the folks who are working for the ministry, the tremendous work that they're doing and the leadership they're providing in the province.
D. Mitchell: I just have a couple of further questions before I'll give way to some other members of the committee. I appreciate what the minister is saying, but I note that the statistics she's provided to me today in the committee indicate that some statistics have not been kept on an ongoing basis with any kind of a regional breakdown in mind. The debt collection complaints to date, for instance, have not been kept by region. Credit reporting complaints are estimated as well.
The only point I would make here is that the minister and her ministry have prepared a business plan for 1995-96 that she has provided to members of the House. On the cover of the business plan it says: "Serving British Columbians, Where They Live, Where They Shop and Where They Play." It's a catchy little slogan, and I like it. But if we're going to serve British Columbians where they live, where they shop and where they play -- if the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services is to do this -- I think it would be desirable to have an element of performance management incorporated either into the business plan or, at the very least, into the ministry's annual report. I think this would be very useful not only for members of the House but for the general public as well. If the statistical data was broken down, segregated in different ways -- first of all, by region -- that would be very useful, because it would give us a chance to see how this ministry is serving British Columbians where they work, where they live and where they play. It's a recommendation I would make. I think it would be useful data, and it would also give us a chance to assess the performance of the ministry on an annual basis and give us some comparative data over the course of the years to come.
I have a question I would like to ask the minister, dealing with the ministry's relationship with the Better Business Bureau. We're familiar with Better Business Bureaus. When many citizens, or consumers, have difficulty dealing with a business, they might take a complaint to the Better Business Bureau. I wonder if the ministry has a well-established relationship with Better Business Bureaus and encourages British Columbians to go forward to these bodies with complaints, or if there are some problems in that relationship, and whether or not the ministry is encouraging British Columbians as consumers to come directly to the ministry instead.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I will deal first with the issue of evaluation and statistics. Because of our development as a new ministry, one of the initial things we did, as well as facilitating our mandate in dealing with the legislation, was to develop a business plan. In doing so, the lead-up to the development of the business plan was the formation of a corporate services branch. As you can well imagine, up until the time the ministry was struck we had a number of different programs from a number of different places in government and did not, at that time, have a corporate services branch. We have now developed that. We have an ADM responsible for corporate services, and we are implementing a new management information system that will help enhance our ability to keep statistical information.
We really have grown a great deal in the last year in becoming a true ministry. Again, I think there has to be tremendous recognition for the ability of leadership in the ministry to pull together the identity that's reflected in the business plan, not only in dealing with some of the significant administrative issues you're talking about but also in providing a vision and a place in this province that makes sense to the folks we serve, both taxpayers and communities. We're quite proud of the leadership that we have provided and the work that has been done with very, very few resources. This was done simply by working smarter and by looking at the limited resources that we have.
I want to again use this as an opportunity to plug the SAFER program and the work that was done there. Before that initiative, there was a three-month backlog. It was a very demoralizing workplace for the people who work there, because they always knew they would never catch up. It was also difficult to be seen as a valued service by the seniors that they serviced. The management-union team that went in there and looked at the SAFER project, not only taking the same resources.... It looked at the way we did business and eliminated the backlog; it made that office a far more energized and positive place to work. This really extended their feeling of ownership and pride in the work that they did. This resulted in a better service for taxpayers. Using that model, I think we will again provide some leadership in government to go program by program and look at the way we do business. That is all well under way.
Second, your question on the Better Business Bureau. We have a very positive relationship with the Better Business Bureaus in the province. We were involved with the launch of their integrity check not very long ago. This is quite an exciting initiative for the business community, as it looks at the way they conduct business in the province. Our relationship is a very positive one on a daily basis. Our staff work very closely with them in dealing with consumer complaints, as well as some other mutual issues.
When we are developing policy and legislation, we often include the Better Business Bureau. You will notice that on a number of our initiatives -- legislative initiatives as well as others -- we received very positive public affirmation of the direction we were headed from the Better Business Bureau. I believe that's a reflection of the fact that we are all working toward the same ends.
D. Mitchell: I just have one final area I'd like to canvass with the minister this afternoon. It deals with the concept of the underground economy, a term that is bandied about by some economists. I'm not sure it's very well-defined; it's defined differently by different people. We discussed this very briefly last year during the spending estimates for this ministry.
[3:00]
This ministry is given the mandate of protecting consumers, and one of the biggest issues that consumers in British Columbia deal with is the burden of taxation and taxation avoidance. We know that's a fact of life. We hear about it in our day-to-day existence, but it's difficult to pin down exactly
[ Page 14009 ]
how large the underground economy is in British Columbia. Recently I've come across one estimate that the so-called underground economy, where people engage in business or consumer transactions that are essentially underneath the table and no GST or PST is paid, is apparently as large as $120 billion, according to one economist. British Columbia's share would be significant; on a per capita basis, it would be between $12 billion and $15 billion. I don't know if it could be that large, but that would certainly be one estimate.
I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not her ministry is doing any work to track the size of the underground economy in British Columbia and decrease its size to combat these kinds of transactions so that business and consumers are engaging in lawful activities and not being forced to go underground, so to speak. It is a major consumer issue, and it's been growing, according to all estimates, over the past few years. We have consumers avoiding the GST, the PST, transfer taxes for property, various fees, levies and other charges by government because unfortunately, the burden of taxation has grown to the point where there are incentives for people to avoid lawful business transactions.
We hear in our day-to-day life -- as members of the assembly but also as private citizens -- people sometimes even bragging about this. I find it hard to accept that people would be bragging about the fact that they're breaking the law. I certainly don't think any of us should encourage it. We should do whatever we can to discourage it. I wonder if the ministry has a handle on that issue.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to come at the question in a slightly different way, and that is from our understanding of the strength of good consumer protection legislation and the support of good business practices.
Often when you think about consumer protection legislation, one views it from a consumer's perspective, but it's as beneficial to businesses as it is to consumers themselves. Let me use a concrete example. In the last year we've developed a compensation fund to do with the automobile industry. Interestingly enough, there is a very positive spinoff for that industry in that there is an encouragement for consumers to do business with reputable automobile retailers, as opposed to using curbers or someone that is dealing with cars in the underground economy. By establishing the compensation fund, there is additional protection both for the consumers and for the retail trade, as well.
Another example that I would use is the development by the Canadian Home Builders' Association and their partnership of a new home warranty. Again, an example of an initiative that -- in this case -- the industry has taken, that we are very supportive of and use within B.C. Housing. Again, it's an encouragement to use reputable, well-established businesses as opposed to someone who is building homes on the side or working without that kind of training or the code of ethics. So there are a number of ways the government can partner and work with reputable businesses, whether it is the Better Business Bureau and their integrity check or through good consumer protection legislation that rewards good business practices and provides stability for consumers' expectations in dealing with those sorts of companies -- as opposed to dealing with the underground economy, where there may not be the same level of protection or guarantee for the work done.
R. Kasper: I would like to ask some questions in regard to the radiant heat ceiling panel issue. The minister is well aware of some of the involvement I've had with that issue, going to bat for a number of consumers within my constituency. We have some 3,000 to 4,000 homeowners -- consumers in this province -- who were affected by this issue. I'd like an update from the minister as to when she could expect the completion of the arbitration process, which was initiated and encouraged by her ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: My answer may be a little more extensive than what this member was looking for, because he's well informed on the issue. For others and for the public record, let me say that the process we initiated with the dean of law at UVic culminated in a report recommending a mediation table; it has been fairly successful. I believe that we now have all the stakeholders engaged in trying to work out a solution that will best serve consumers in this province.
As the member knows, government is simply one of the people at the table. This is not a government table, and because of that he would have to get his information from the chair. Until such time as the chair of the mediation process reports out, I can't provide any additional information -- although I am very encouraged by the fact that even with a bit of a rough start, people seem to be getting down to work and working through some very creative options.
R. Kasper: Without putting the minister on the spot in relation to targeting, or having her give opinions on who is at fault prior to the final report and the conclusion of the mediation arbitration process that is currently taking place, I would like to ask the minister if she saw the "Marketplace" television report on this particular appliance earlier this year. It seemed to put a lot of blame on the Canadian Standards Association. Would the minister care to comment on that report?
Hon. J. Smallwood: No, I'm not prepared to comment, and I'm not prepared to compromise the mediation table by commenting on the work that is being done at the table. For the member's information, the next scheduled meeting of the mediation table is June 2. I think it suffices to say that this issue is very complex. There are a number of issues being canvassed, and I'm sure the member would join me in wishing the table all the best of luck.
R. Kasper: Just as a follow-up, pending the completion of this process, could the minister at least give me and the consumers affected by this issue some assurances that in regard to the whole question of the role of CSA in our society as a whole, the level of accountability by that organization and the standards that they have developed, which the National Building Code is based on, the installation requirements and the inspections that are carried out in the province and other provinces in Canada, she would raise those concerns with other ministers responsible for consumer protection and perhaps her federal counterpart?
This whole issue in regard to radiant heat and the problems that have been encountered not only in B.C. but across Canada have clearly shown that we have some major problems in regard to standards that have been allowed to be developed in Canada without the necessary checks and balances and without the necessary levels of accountability.
If the role of CSA or any other party -- be it those who inspect installations or those who develop the standards for
[ Page 14010 ]
installation of appliances -- were in place and clearly understood, I don't think we would be where we are right now. We wouldn't have to go through this process. It wouldn't be the consumers that are left in the lurch.
I would hope and stress that the minister would bring those issues to her colleagues and her counterparts at the federal level. It's the federal government that has allowed organizations such as CSA to exist in this country. I think we have to get that message through to the federal level.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I already indicated to the member that I won't enter into a discussion about the mediation table and the process. I think it is important for us all to acknowledge that the mediation process has been put in place not to direct blame but instead to help recommend remedies for consumers.
I would like to take the opportunity to emphasize the need for a strong national consumer presence. Unfortunately, and most regrettably, the federal Liberals have severely curtailed the ability to have a strong federal voice on the consumer front in their budget decisions of this year. Not only is that regrettable from the perspective of consumers, but at a time when we're seeing free trade and the opening of borders, I think there is a real need for governments to act as watchdogs in a strong, regulatory and standard-setting role in the marketplace. It's important for us to recognize the good work that CSA has done historically, and it's important for us as Canadians to recognize the need for such bodies. It would be my hope that in dealing with a number of these issues, we could do so in a very creative and supportive fashion.
K. Jones: I'd like to congratulate the member from Malahat-Juan de Fuca for his very fine efforts on behalf of those people who have had problems with radiant ceiling panels. It's a very serious problem to a lot of people, not just a small group, as you'd like to have it. Hon. minister, I think that you seem to be very hesitant to take up this issue because you don't want to destabilize....
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt you, and your flow will carry on, but there is a way of addressing the minister -- not using the second person. Third person, and through the Chair. Thank you.
[3:15]
K. Jones: The minister seems to be concerned about not commenting on the issue because it may destabilize some negotiation and mediation that's going on, but she seems to forget that the federal government is also part and parcel of that mediation and negotiation. Yet she doesn't hesitate to trash the representatives of the federal government on this issue. It sounds like she doesn't really know what this process of trying to get a resolve to the people's concerns is. She's more interested in playing political games with this whole issue. I think that's the most important thing we should all be doing here: getting this issue resolved. There are people who are stuck without proper heating conditions, and have been for almost a year, because of your dilly-dallying and your failure to take on your responsibilities.
The Chair: Hon. member, I would draw to your attention again....
K. Jones: I apologize.
The Chair: Thank you.
K. Jones: The minister's really more interested.... She's very proud of the fact, in her introductory presentation, that she's able to get a prosecution on another consumer affairs situation and put a guy in jail for a year. She's very proud of that. But what's she prepared to do with the CSA or with other standards outfits that give misleading confidences to people who purchase on the basis of supposed standards that are willing to be accepted...?
The Chair: Hon. member, excuse me. I think there was a phrase used in your comments just now that was not entirely appropriate, not entirely parliamentary.
K. Jones: Which one?
The Chair: "Misleading."
K. Jones: Misleading? I'm not talking about the member; I'm talking about the reports.
The Chair: We're not arguing. I'm just drawing attention to a word you used. I'm sure there's some other phrase you could use, and I'm sure you will do so.
K. Jones: These standards organizations were giving out information that does not appear to be perfectly factual -- if that's more correct. It's not one that people have confidence in, hon. Chair.
The minister hasn't taken one step to try to address the issue on behalf of all those people who have been hurt, who have had great financial losses, who have gone without heat in their homes, because of her long-term dilly-dallying. She hasn't faced the issue, hasn't gone out there and gained the necessary material to stand up for these people. Therefore the minister is not able to truly represent the needs of these people. What we want from the minister is some action. These people have been asking for some action for six months or more. All they get is another review, another mediation. That is not paying for the cost of their new heating system or for their loss of comfort in their home. That is not resolving their problem, hon. minister.
What are you going to be doing that is concrete in taking on the standards organizations in this country in order to make sure that there are truly standards that people can trust, not just authorization of licences for certain products, which is what they presently are? People are losing confidence in the process of standards as a result of the lack of action on behalf of those people. The minister and the ministry have failed to do that, which is something that most people expected them to do.
Hon. J. Smallwood: One is awfully tempted to respond in a partisan way or to dismiss the member's comments because the member is ill-informed. But for the public record, let me again reflect the work that has been done by our ministry and the very positive actions, in support of consumers, that are now in place.
I'll start by reflecting the participants at the mediation table. For the member's information again, this is a mediation table that is directed by the participants at the table; this is not
[ Page 14011 ]
a government table. It was set up through the good works of this ministry in developing a process that encouraged all of those affected to agree to look for a remedy. The participants at the table are representing CSA, two different manufacturers, consumers' interests, municipalities and the provincial government, and I believe insurers have also agreed to join that process. It's a reflection of the number of affected bodies. It's a reflection of the complexity. There is no simple answer here. But instead of simply having the courts as the only remedy, this province has actively engaged in the process of moving the issue along to try to bring about a remedy.
Having said that, the province also has made a commitment along with the Attorney General to support class action, should this mediation process fail or should any consumer or group of consumers decide to take any of the interested parties to court. How did we get there? Once the disconnect order....
I'm certain the member is interested in this information, so I'll wait until he concludes his conversation.
When the disconnect order for the ceiling panels was issued, this ministry actively represented the interests of consumers, and we began our research to understand the issue better. In doing so, we also coordinated through government a single access line with what ended up being public interest advocacy. We facilitated a loan program for those individuals who had the ability to deal with their immediate heating needs, and we facilitated the availability of heating units for individuals that could not take advantage of a loan program -- for instance, if they were in a rental property. So we have been very active; we have taken leadership. Our remedy will cost consumers considerably less time, energy and money than traditional remedies of the court.
We have also -- while we developed the process with Mr. Cohen -- opened lines of communication with insurance companies to flag for them the issues of alternate heating sources for the consumers who found themselves in a situation of facing a disconnect order.
Let me spend a little bit of time on the process that our ministry initiated with Mr. Cohen. Again, because the issue was so complex and there were so many variables from consumer to consumer, from manufacturer to manufacturer, from inspectors' roles, etc., it became very clear to us that we needed some way of pulling all of the information together. For the member's information, we used a model similar to the one that was developed at the time of the UFFI foam issue nationally, where that report became an extraordinarily valuable tool in not only pulling the information together but providing a basis from which decisions could be made.
To underestimate this ministry's role -- and the leadership that we have provided in moving this issue along and bringing support to consumers to remedy their issues -- I believe, not only does a disservice to this ministry and to this government but does a disservice to all of those interested and affected individuals and organizations that have supported the process.
K. Jones: How can you say that this....
The Chair: Hon. member: language.
K. Jones: How can the minister say that this action of trying to get something resolved is going to be not in the interests of those people who have been affected? That's really what we are here trying to do: have the ministry take some action and move on getting this clarified -- not getting involved in it, so much, but getting the things resolved, looking at the whole question of the responsibilities.
What this appears to be is basically a cover-your-backside-and-spread-the-liability process that's been put in place to try and take less responsibility. I think the end result has been that the minister has created the impression that the government may have some liability in this, when they probably don't have a liability in this. But by stepping in and treating it in the way it has been, I would think that the ministry has now given the impression to the public that there is a liability, because of their major role in this whole issue.
As far as your suggestion about class-action process being considered, the present legislation is totally ineffective in providing a class action in this case. That's been advised by many of the people who've talked to their legal counsel in regard to this, where they would like to take some class action. Basically we don't have the legislation forward that should be out here to provide class-action opportunities. Where is that legislation that you should be bringing forward?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm certain that the member is concerned about this issue and about constituents that he represents. I would encourage him to look at Hansard and specifically at the words that I have chosen, because he is misrepresenting them in his follow-up comments.
Secondly, with regard to his question and the issue of class action, we have very publicly made a commitment to include this particular issue in class action amendments.
K. Jones: On a point of order, hon. Chair. You said that I was using unparliamentary language when I said that these standards organizations were misrepresenting their case, yet you allow the minister to say that I am misrepresenting people. Which is it?
The Chair: Hon. minister, while I deliberate.
Hon. J. Smallwood: In the interest of expediting our business this afternoon, if I offended the member in any way, I withdraw.
K. Jones: Well, hon. Chair, is that your recommendation also?
The Chair: I accept the action the minister has taken.
K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister a question in another area. With regard to polls and public opinion research, what has been done for the ministry that you represent by others?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That question has already been asked during estimates. But for the member's information, during this past fiscal year we have not conducted any public polling or research.
K. Jones: Just to correct the minister, the minister was not paying attention, obviously, to the previous questioner. The question was with regard to what public opinion research had
[ Page 14012 ]
been done by your ministry. My question was: "What had been done by other ministries or by other agencies for your ministry?"
[3:30]
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just to be very clear, my answer to you was with regard to the last fiscal year. Let me provide you with information in total, since this ministry was created in September '93.
During that time period, we have conducted public polling information on the issue of secondary suites, on home ownership alternatives and on attitudes to rent protection legislation. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Liberal caucus has requested that information through FOI. I'm a little perplexed, since it has been made available to you, as to why you have not made those polls public. Perhaps, I might speculate, it is because the polling was so positive toward our initiative.
K. Jones: It's the first time I've ever heard the government saying that the official opposition should be making their polls public, when they are afraid to bring them forward themselves. It's unbelievable. We'll be happy to do your work for you, if that's the way you want us to do it, but I really don't think that's the proper role of the official opposition. The minister should be forthright with her polls and bring them out, especially if they are so good. Why haven't you tabled them a long time ago?
I'm very pleased that you have now come out and said that you have some polls and some information in the public research area. Could you tell us which of those were initiated in your ministry and which were initiated outside your ministry? What were the costs of those?
The Chair: Hon. member, before the minister responds, may I remind you that the second-person pronoun is not used here; speak through the Chair.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't have that information here with me, but I'll certainly make that available to the member.
K. Jones: I think the minister just mentioned three. Were those done within the ministry? Or were they done outside the ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We paid for all three.
K. Jones: I would appreciate it if you would follow through on your offer and elaborate on the other studies that have been done, both inside and outside the ministry, that are related to your ministry. Could you give us, for the last two years, what studies have been done and what they cost?
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, the member should be familiar with my record. When I make a commitment, I fulfil it. Second, the commitment I made was to provide information with regard to the cost of public polling or public research with respect to those three specific areas. That is the extent of my commitment, and the member can expect follow-through.
K. Jones: Thank you, minister for the open and honest government process that you just indicated your ministry is operating under. That means that if a person wants any information from your ministry, the minister is not going to give it out, but if you want to FOI it, you might get it. Is that what you're saying?
The Chair: Hon. member, I don't think that was appropriate, if you don't mind. It's my role to say that I don't think that's appropriate. If you have a question as a follow-up on your topic, then please ask the question -- through the Chair, of course.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister could tell us why any of the proposed studies would not be made available with regard to the items that are used to provide for information within her ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: All the information that was obtained by these questions put to the public has been included in the work of this ministry. This ministry is actively engaged in partnerships with the community, with the sectors they serve and with individuals. We're very proud of the work we do and take every opportunity to talk to people about that work. As a matter of fact, as the member will clearly see in our business plan, the direction has been one of outreach and involving the community in addressing solutions, remedies and preventive approaches.
K. Jones: I presume that the minister then has no problem in making those documents available to the public. Please table them to us, hon. minister.
The Chair: Would the hon. member like to continue.
K. Jones: The minister has chosen not to respond to that, and that will be on the record.
I'd like to go into another area. What statistics has the ministry got with regard to multilevel marketing practices?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Earlier on today, I made available the number of investigations and complaints by phone calls the Consumer Services part of our ministry has dealt with in the past year. I don't at this point have a breakout to indicate the particular areas of complaint. The issue of pyramid marketing would be rolled up in those numbers. We do have calls on that issue, and our office does provide support.
K. Jones: Does the minister consider that there may be more than one concern about multilevel marketing in the province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think that's fair to say.
K. Jones: Sorry, I couldn't quite hear the words.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes.
K. Jones: Yes? Thank you. Could the minister tell us just what the ministry is doing in regard to investigating those complaints and those concerns?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The issue of multilevel marketing is a joint jurisdictional responsibility. The federal government is responsible in that area, although our involvement with those
[ Page 14013 ]
types of schemes would be to pursue it under trade practices or unconscionable business practices. While I don't have the specific numbers or cases in front of me, I think it's fair to say that we have looked into complaints and investigated such situations. The one that comes to mind, which was of fairly high profile in the last while, involved a travel agency in the interior. By simply profiling it, making the public aware of that particular example, the firm backed off. Because we did not have the evidence, we were unable to pursue it, but that company, I believe, is no longer doing business in the province.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what investigations are currently underway in that area?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just to remind the member, I indicated that we don't have that information here. I have made the commitment to get the information and make it available. I don't have the information. I can't comment on current investigation.
K. Jones: The hon. minister has about six staff here. Is it possible that they would not have the information of a current, fairly publicly known investigation going on in the province? Is she not aware of any of this? What's going on in her ministry?
The Chair: Hon. member, I think the minister has given every indication of her commitment to respond to your question. That's the third time you've referred to it. I think perhaps it would be a good idea to move on to another one. The ministry staff will do as they see fit. You may get the information this afternoon, depending on what's happening in their world. So I suggest you move on to another line of questioning.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. I will take that advice and go on to another area.
I would like to ask the minister, with regard to the report on secondary suites dated August 11, 1994, if she could tell us what she is doing with the recommendations of that report.
Hon. J. Smallwood: That report was chaired by the member for Surrey-Green Timbers. It was a committee that had representation from the UBCM; it included a number of municipalities, staff and some municipal councillors. That report was tabled with the UBCM, and since that time we've continued to work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. We have just recently struck a task group out of my advisory council, which is made up of a broad sectoral representation.
While that report specifically dealt with municipal regulatory issues, it did not deal with the interests and concerns of tenants living in secondary suites. The real estate industry was not at that table, nor were the actual homeowners. I believe, after receiving that report, that there is a need to have tenants' perspectives. The issue is broader than simply a regulatory municipal issue, and there is a need to profile the interests of homeowners and the real estate industry in that secondary suites are of benefit not only in providing affordable housing for those who live in secondary suites but as a mortgage helper for homeowners themselves.
I think it suffices to say that we have a considerable amount of work to do yet in the province. There is not a consensus among the UBCM representatives. I have encouraged the UBCM itself to embrace this challenge, as the province has, in order to help come to a resolution that encourages and supports the development of secondary suites in B.C.
K. Jones: I would like to remind the minister that according to the document itself the principal tasks of the 11-member group of local government and provincial representatives were to study the complex issues surrounding secondary suites, advise the ministers on practical ways to maintain and increase the number of suites, and overcome current problems experienced by many local governments. From what I've heard of the minister's statement, the product which came as a result of that mandate is inadequate, incomplete and requires major elaboration. Does the minister have confidence in the chair of the committee which put this report forward?
[3:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: By the makeup of the committee and the mandate of that task group, the job was carried out admirably not only by the chair but by all those who provided a great deal of time, energy and expertise. I thank the committee for its work and am very pleased with its recommendations.
The issue of secondary suites is not an easy one, and, as I indicated, there isn't a consensus within the UBCM. Because we respect our partners in providing affordable housing and addressing such complex issues, we will continue to work with them to reach a consensus or, at the very least, to seek significant support from that broad sector in moving forward.
K. Jones: The report makes several very clear recommendations. Am I hearing the minister correctly? Is she saying that she does not accept any of the recommendations?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I refer the member to Hansard so that he can re-read my last answer.
K. Jones: The last answer didn't answer the question. I can only conclude, therefore, that she has some problem with the recommendations. I hope that's the case. Or is it that she actually does believe that the provincial government should legislate, as a right, that secondary suites be allowed in all single-family dwellings?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Could I request, because I don't have the report here with me...? As you can see, we've brought with us a great deal of information with regard to the ministry and our responsibility. We don't have that report. May I ask the member...?
In an attempt to clarify the public record, let me put the quotes from the member in context. It very clearly states in the report that this report also describes three additional approaches. These are not recommendations, but this report simply describes three additional approaches to addressing the prospect for maintaining and increasing the supply.
In other words, hon. member, while the report makes clear recommendations with regard to changes to the regulatory municipal process, it goes further to ask the question about these three different approaches. The issue of rights to secondary suites is proposed in three different ways for future consideration.
[ Page 14014 ]
So for the member to suggest that the report is recommending that the government legislate the right to a secondary suite is not correct and is not in context, and it does not do service to the report. In identifying three additional approaches, it indicates that government should allow a family or caregiver suite in all single-family dwellings, allow a suite in single-family dwellings that is owner-occupied and allow a secondary suite as a right. That is simply one of the considerations that they offer as other approaches, hon. member.
K. Jones: Could the minister clarify the difference between recommendation and approach? If they had not intended this to be a guide to the ministry, why would they have put it in the report?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not sure that this is particularly good use of the committee's time, but again I'll take the opportunity to read to the hon. member the report that he has introduced into the line of questioning. If the member will refer to the top of the recommendations, it says that the committee's recommendations emphasize the need for continuing education and legislative changes which are enabling in spirit rather than directive. In condensed form, the recommendations are.... There are seven specific recommendations for action. It then goes on after the recommendation section to describe additional approaches. The report very clearly differentiates between what the committee recommends and issues of future considerations or approaches.
K. Jones: The minister chooses to claim that when it's uncomfortable for her to answer the question, it becomes not good use of committee time. If she were forthright with her answers -- yes or no -- that would be much better use of committee time. We wouldn't have to continue asking the same types of questions just to get vague answers.
Surely the issue of right that is being suggested by this report would never have come forward if this committee had had one elected official or homeowner on it, rather than being made up of civic administrative staff and representatives of other organizations. Surely the minister should have recognized that this was not a balanced committee when she saw the makeup of the committee at the very beginning, and she should have put an end to the committee as it was. I presume that the minister made the appointments to the committee. Or was it up to the chair of the committee to choose the committee?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think that it's important for the member to recognize -- and the member has the makeup of the committee, the representatives -- that the commitment that these individuals have brought to this work is significant. They represent a very important sector in our province. I'm sure it's not the intent of the member to denigrate the UBCM or municipal government. Through this report, their contributions and recommendations are very useful and are a very positive contribution to enhancing the supply of affordable housing in this province.
K. Jones: The minister is obviously waffling. We can't even get an answer as to....
The Chair: Hon. member, in the estimates that we have had to date, I really don't believe we've had the kind of provocation that seems to be coming forward. I think we have had some very good discussions on issues and policy matters for ministers; it's been excellent. I would just like to draw to your attention that perhaps we might proceed a little more smoothly if the language, the tone and the temper of your remarks was a little less question-period style, if I may be so bold, sir. Now you may continue.
K. Jones: The committee makeup is very, very important to the credibility of this report. Hon. minister, could you tell us, in answer to the last question I asked: did you approve the appointments of the committee, or was the committee selected by the chair of the committee?
The Chair: Hon. member, again, second person is not appropriate; third person.
K. Jones: Was the minister responsible for making the decision?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think....
An Hon. Member: There's always the option of not getting up and letting him sit in his chair and stew. We can always vote.
The Chair: Order, order.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member would be very concerned about any accusation that this line of questioning has something to do with a member representing a neighbouring riding -- that the motivation was more one of hometown politics than it is of the interest of British Columbians and individuals owning and living in secondary suites. The committee was a committee that has been ongoing for some time; it was originally struck when the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing was in existence, and the chair joined the committee halfway through its work.
K. Jones: I'll just ask the one question: did the minister or the previous minister of the ministry that set up this committee authorize the appointments of these people?
The Chair: Hon. minister, I don't believe you can answer on behalf of another minister.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
K. Jones: I will ask my question of the minister: does she have knowledge of who appointed the members of this committee."
The Chair: Shall vote 44 pass?
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chair. You are trying to push things, aren't you? You're not even giving the minister a chance to respond.
The Chair: Hon. member, if you once again challenge the Chair, you'll be asked to leave for the remainder of the day. The hon. member may now continue.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, thank you.
[ Page 14015 ]
To the minister: with regard to the secondary suite report, when is the minister going to take some action on this report?
[4:00]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to table with the House a commitment I made earlier to this member with regard to multilevel marketing. Currently, there are no multilevel marketing investigations in British Columbia. Multilevel marketing is legal in British Columbia so long as the profit is generated from the sale of the product and the consumer is not obligated to buy an exorbitant amount. Legal multilevel schemes in this province include Amway, Avon and Mary Kay. When the practice of the business emphasizes recruitment of other marketers and the profit comes from recruitment fees, that is a violation of the federal Competition Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. We have no info on federal investigations underway.
The Chair: I will remind all members that we are in committee and that there is no provision to table documents in committee. Members may table documents when we are back in full chamber in the House. In committee, as a matter of courtesy, if there is to be an exchange of documents, they can be moved by the staff of the Sergeant-at-Arms across the floor but are not officially recognized. The hon. member continues.
K. Jones: I want to just put on the record very clearly that we are not asking any questions with regard to the legitimate operations of multilevel operations that are perfectly legal within this province and country. We are asking as to what investigations may be going on by the ministry of those areas that are considered to be not legal.
M. de Jong: One of the initiatives that the ministry undertook recently, and which now comprises a part of its operation, relates to the consumer protection package on motor vehicle leasing. I have heard the minister speak about that, and I recognize that she and the ministry were responding to some difficulties that existed. In fact, I think the average layperson would know that there have been difficulties.
The approach that the minister took is perhaps a logical one, given the difficulties that arose from what I think were some shady practices on the part of automotive dealers and retailers. It does, however, represent an intrusion by the state into that generally free exchange which takes place between vendor and purchaser. The minister has given reasons for her approach. But one of the concerns, I suppose, that one could articulate is: is the minister considering other areas...? That is a speculative question and not the question I intend to put to the minister, but it does raise some concerns about just where this is leading.
Presumably the minister identified an area where she thought the state could intervene and take some corrective action to protect consumers in accordance with the mission statement of her ministry. I'm wondering at this point whether she is in a position to report on the success or failure of that initiative, and to what extent further initiatives along this line -- relating to the automotive industry -- are being contemplated.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The motor dealer leasing regulations that we had the privilege of bringing forward have not only been well received in this province but have provided leadership across the country and in North America. Not only are we proud of that leadership, but it's a reflection of the good works of our ministry in researching other jurisdictions and identifying the strengths of different jurisdictional protections and building on them.
I want to emphasize the heart of the regulations that were brought in. Not only do they deal with issues around a cooling-off period -- an opportunity for people to truly take a look at, and shop around for, other alternatives -- but they are based on the principles of full disclosure and plain language, according to which individuals should have the opportunity to look at those contracts, understand them and then enter them in full knowledge.
I'm sure the member is aware of some of the true horror stories that were brought to light by the consumer reporter for the Vancouver Province, who provided a very positive service to consumers in the province. The industry is complying with the regulations. It is our hope that, like other changes we have brought about, it will not only support good business practices -- because without question that helps the industries that we do business with understand and recognize the strength of supporting good business practices -- but that it will really target some of those bad actors, in recognition that the bad actors give the whole industry a black eye.
M. de Jong: I hope the minister understands -- I think she does -- that I'm certainly not quarrelling with the fact that there was an issue there to be dealt with. She alluded to the material that the print media provided and disclosed, and I'm not quarrelling with that. I guess what I'm trying to ascertain.... and I'm mindful of some of the comments of the minister's colleague the Minister of Health, who has indicated his desire to try to quantify, in a very meaningful way, the impact that these various initiatives have. I will repeat that it is a significant step -- and perhaps, in this case, a warranted one -- for the state to intervene in contractual relations between individuals and say: "This is how you will contract with one another." It may very well be warranted here, but that is a significant step.
There was a problem. Having identified that problem, the minister says the response of her ministry and her government has been well received. I guess I'm looking for something a little beyond that. All right, it has been well received. Has it worked? Is she in a position to quantify for this committee, in some sort of empirical way, what the impact of these guidelines have been?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We will be evaluating the initiative. We haven't had a full year's experience with this new initiative. But let me make two additional comments as a comparator. In the last short while one of the changes that we had an opportunity to bring in has to do with door-to-door sellers. As an indication of how successful that was, our complaints about door-to-door sellers are down 20 percent by simply requiring a door-to-door seller to wear an identification badge, to be licensed and to support a cooling-off period -- very similar principles that are brought to bear with most consumer protection legislation. We're supporting good business practices.
Let me talk a little about the spinoffs for the leasing regulations. One of the concerns about the poor business practices that were profiled in Marlaina Gayle's articles in her coverage of this issue was that it reinforced a feeling among
[ Page 14016 ]
consumers that leasing wasn't necessarily for them. They didn't understand the leasing process; they didn't have confidence in the business that they would do with automobile leasing.
We believe -- and I think it's been proven in other jurisdictions -- that by bringing about the changes to plain language and to full disclosure of contracts, they will encourage and support this particular sector. We believe it is a valuable sector that often provides options for individuals who are in need of good reliable cars and who are not in a position to put up large down payments. So we saw this as a way of not only dealing with some of the bad business practices but as an opportunity to support good business practices and encourage the investment in the leasing sector for the retail automotive industry.
On the issue of evaluation, when we have the numbers, we'll be happy to provide them for you.
M. de Jong: I'm pleased, for example, to hear that in the realm of the door-to-door salesman, initiatives have led to a 20 percent decrease in complaints. We can get our heads around that data. The concern is that when the initiative was launched -- and let us take that example -- what was the objective? A 20 percent decrease is fantastic. If the objective was to decrease complaints by 15 percent, you have met and surpassed your objectives. It is not nearly as favourably looked upon if the objective was to cut complaints in half.
If the state embarks upon these initiatives without a clear sense of the objective at the end of the day, we don't ever get a sense of whether we've been successful or not. With respect to the minister, it doesn't do to set the test a year after the program has been in place, because then we can tailor our objectives to what we know has already occurred. I understand the minister is saying that in the case of this example, this one program dealing with automobile leasing, it hasn't been a year. Therefore the opportunity to examine the data hasn't been presented.
My question is: when the ministry embarked upon this initiative, what was the objective? We can analyze the data when it becomes available at the conclusion of the year...but what objectives did the ministry set to hold itself accountable, to determine whether or not the money spent, the time spent and the intrusion into the market were all worthwhile? It is not satisfactory to look at it retrospectively and say that this is what happened and this is what our objective is going to be.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The member asked for indicators with regard to the impact. This is a very different question and is based on a difference on ideology. The member obviously believes there is no role in government to provide consumer protection or a legislative infrastructure. The objectives of this legislative initiative, like other consumer protection legislation, is to prevent abuses and to hold those who abuse their power in the marketplace accountable for their actions.
[4:15]
M. de Jong: In these estimates debates, I suspect it is appropriate for me to query the minister as to the number of FTEs, or the dollar amount dedicated to seeing this program along and to assessing its success. I'd like to have that information from the minister. Before I take my seat for that answer, I think the minister has somewhat misinterpreted my remarks. I don't think the question is ideological. I think there are legitimate times when the state does need to intervene. I'm approaching the subject not from that point of view but more from the perspective of how we determine, if state makes that decision, whether or not it has done so successfully.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would reiterate that complaints were up last year and are down this year. I don't have the quantum.
M. de Jong: One of the objectives that the.... Let me withdraw that, hon. Chair. I also asked the minister whether she was in a position to relate to the committee the dollar amount or the FTEs dedicated to this single program within the ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just to refresh the member's memory, the regulations are governed by a plain language contract. The industry has complied, so there are no ministerial resources dedicated to this specific issue.
M. de Jong: Presumably, though, the minister has indicated that there will be some manner of detailed assessment carried out. Maybe she could enlighten members of the committee about the area of her staff and the moneys which have been dedicated to that portion of the exercise.
Hon. J. Smallwood: It is our hope that we will see the same reduction in complaints as we have seen in the door-to-door seller initiative, as a result of which the market is a fairer place where consumers can expect fairer treatment.
We can weed out some of the abusers, hopefully, and provide an opportunity for our investigators and those who take those 56,000-odd phone calls a year to concentrate on, and deal with, other issues. As the member is well aware, the marketplace is a rapidly changing place, so we don't expect that those taking those inquiries will be free to the extent that they will no longer have business to do.
M. de Jong: Perhaps this will reveal my ignorance about the manner in which ministerial departments -- this one and others -- generally operate. Is the minister unable, then, to advise us whether there are dedicated staff whose task it will be to analyze the success of this initiative, and whether that dedicated staff, in terms of FTEs, represents an identifiable part of her budget for the coming year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There is no dedicated staff. The statistical information that I will be able to share with you will reflect the number of complaint calls that are coming into the ministry dealing with issues in the automobile leasing industry. We will evaluate the complaints to understand whether they are in plain language contracts and whether regulations have addressed the issues in the marketplace successfully. It is our hope, and I believe we do have indications already, that the number of complaints coming in with regard to automobile leasing is on the decline since the introduction of this initiative, but it's too early to tell the overall impact.
M. de Jong: I've queried the minister on this particular subject for two reasons. First, it is something that I think is of interest to many British Columbians. A lot of British Colum-
[ Page 14017 ]
bians buy cars or are engaged in the retail automotive trade -- if we can call it that. I note also, however, that one of the objectives that the ministry has set for itself in the coming year relates to the residential tenancy branch and, again, the creation of some standardization in terms of documentation. There is a whole list of what I think are laudable goals. People would have difficulty quarrelling with some of the objectives that the minister has set out in the annual report.
Based on the questions I put to her about the automotive leasing program, the minister will understand my concern that as the ministry heads off into that realm there should be a scheme in place whereby government members, senior-level bureaucrats and opposition members can hold the ministry, the staff and the government accountable in terms of whether the objective to eliminate disputes between landlords and tenants was actually met -- for example, by standardizing the lease documents. I don't know whether the minister is contemplating a document that is to be adopted mandatorily. If it is, that is a more significant intrusion into the marketplace -- again, perhaps warranted. I'm familiar, as the minister is, with the traffic that heads in and out of the residential tenancy branch doors. There's no secret about that.
If landlords and tenants are to be compelled to adopt a standardized contractual relationship with one another, and that is being done to respond to difficulties that have arisen on a grand scale in the marketplace, then let us at least be confident that the minister has set out, and it's clear, what the problem is and what the response is going to be. What will the indicators be that we as a government, as a state, have responded and accomplished something?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me comment on two different issues. One is that because we are a new ministry, we are in the process of setting up a corporate business plan, a corporate strategy and the information systems necessary to monitor and track the policy changes, to ensure fine-tuning where needed and to live up to the commitment that I have made very publicly in touring the provinces specifically in regard to your questioning around residential tenancy and Bill 50 changes.
We've developed our ongoing relationship with our community partners by involving them and making the commitment that they will be involved not only in the policy development but in its implementation, understanding that we won't always agree.
Having said that, let me deal with the specific issue of the tenancy agreement. I'm sure the member is well aware of the fact that the Residential Tenancy Act does not govern the unit. The system that is set up is not rent controls, nor is the relationship on any other issue governed by that legislation dealing with a unit or a specific building or, in any other way, the accommodation. It simply governs the contractual arrangement between a landlord and a tenant.
Having said that, I'm sure the member would agree that in governing that contractual arrangement between a landlord and a tenant, there must be very clear expectations and an understanding of the expectations of the landlord and the tenant as to the agreement they are entering into. There are some requirements by law.
The work that we are doing with regard to the agreement itself simply identifies the legal obligations that are governed by law and a requirement that those legal obligations be spelled out clearly. That work is not concluded.
M. de Jong: Is the minister able to offer information to the committee? I presume this work is being undertaken in the policy and legislative branches of the ministry. I presume also that in this case there is, at this stage, staff dedicated to that task. Can she indicate the extent to which those staff have been dedicated? I guess the bottom line on all these questions is: what is it costing during the coming fiscal year to develop these policy frameworks and these initiatives?
Hon. J. Smallwood: A policy analyst may be dedicated to a particular policy area and will take on additional and/or different responsibility as that work is completed. At this point in time, the consumer operations policy shop has six full-time-equivalents in it. They would be responsible not only for residential tenancy policy development but also the other legislative responsibility within consumer operations. There are a number of statutes that we are responsible for. So in consumer policy overall, with the six FTEs -- I'm assuming you want those numbers, that was part of the question -- for '95-96 it is roughly $430,000.
M. de Jong: I suspect it would be rather unfair of me to ask the minister to articulate in detail what her expectations of the impact of the initiative would be, to the extent that she could say: "I'm studying as an objective that complaints be down by 50 percent." That might be unfair, given that this matter is continuing along within the ministry, but I do think it's legitimate for me to ask the minister. Given that she has made the decision to inject the ministry into the marketplace and dedicate a significant number of her staff and public dollars to this process, I think it's legitimate for me to ask her what objectives she has set in her mind and what indicators she will be looking at to determine whether or not the ministry has had any impact and success.
[4:30]
I will signal to the minister that to the greatest extent possible, I would appreciate a response such that, quite frankly, I could come to her in six or eight months time and say: "Now look, Madam Minister, these are what you said your objectives were going to be, and these are the indicators you were looking at. Have you achieved them, or have you not? And if you haven't, why not?" Could she answer my question with that in mind? I've tried to be fair in terms of signalling what my diabolical intention would be somewhere down the road.
Hon. J. Smallwood: In some sense, we are dealing with an ideology here, because I would argue we're not injecting ourselves into the marketplace but are instead providing some support and -- in particular, in Bill 50 -- have already achieved considerable success. I know the member wasn't here, so it gives me an opportunity to highlight that success again. First of all, we are not just talking about numbers or statistics or how governments evaluate programs in isolation. We are talking about individuals and their homes, the places they live, and about landlords, their businesses and assets that are important to them.
The success of Bill 50 is based on a system that facilitates remedies outside legislated arbitration or quasi-judicial
[ Page 14018 ]
decision-making. As an indicator of how successful that system has been in meeting that goal, since the implementation of Bill 50, including the retroactive period, which was a full year plus, we have seen a total of 183 arbitrations dealing with the broad changes. Clearly the majority were rent-protection arbitrations. I think some 76 percent of the total 180 arbitrations dealt with rent protection.
That says to us that landlords and tenants are working it out. It also says the majority of landlords and tenants do not need the heavy hand of government to intervene in the marketplace, but they do need a safety valve. That safety valve is exactly what we have developed through Bill 50 changes.
Let me give you some specifics. The vast majority of the 140 arbitrations that were held with respect to rent protection were over the market average. The market average in this province for a rent increase is 3 to 5 percent. While we actually heard six cases under 5 percent, all the rest were over 5 percent. Approximately 20 percent of the cases were 5-10 percent rent increases; 25 percent were 10-15 percent rent increases; 15 percent were 15-20 percent rent increases; and 15 percent were 20-30 percent rent increases. We heard four arbitrations reflecting 30-40 percent rent increases, and, indeed, we even heard an arbitration dealing with a rent increase of 212 percent. So you can see that the rent increases that have been arbitrated reflect the intent of the legislation to provide that independent third party and safety valve for the market. Keep in mind we are talking about people's homes.
M. de Jong: I asked the last question with a purpose in mind. I will quote the member for Parksville, whom I heard say during various committee deliberations in questioning certain individuals that he wanted to give that person an opportunity to share their vision of what their objective was. That's what I asked the minister. Tell us why you are heading down this legislative path or this path of intervention -- and I don't use that in any sort of pejorative way.
The Chair: Hon. member, you may or may not be aware of standing order 61. I thought I'd draw it to everyone's attention. It discusses the issue of legislation, that legislation per se is not a topic for discussion here; that's for another debate. At this stage, your discussion should centre on the estimates and perhaps, therefore, how the point you want to make is relevant to this ministry and, particularly in this case, the minister's office vote. If you would be so kind, we could fulfil our obligations here a little better.
M. de Jong: I was trying to take care to steer clear of legislative debate. My question relates to the resources that the minister is expending within her ministry. I was trying to draw out of the minister what the objective was, which I don't think she's articulated clearly, with respect to the broad statements included in some of the material she has released. I know it's convenient to say the numbers don't tell the whole story, and that's true. But surely they tell a part of the story. If we don't know what part of the story we want to focus on when we embark upon this, we surely won't know whether we've achieved it at the end.
I fear I'm belabouring the point. It is perhaps something we are not accustomed to in government. But to say at the outset what we want to achieve and what indicators we will look to in order to determine whether we have achieved it, I think is not unfair. The minister has pointed to some arbitrations that took place; maybe that is the indicator that she will look to. Maybe a sign of the success of her ministry will be that there isn't an arbitration involving a 212 percent rent increase. Maybe those are the indicators that she believes are important.
She has mentioned that there are some other things less empirical, perhaps which relate to quality of life. If those are the things that are important to the minister, let her say that. Let us know, on this side of the House, why she is embarking on this path and what she will point to at the end of this fiscal year, after having expended these public dollars, as a sign of success within the ministry.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I draw the member's attention to a document that we circulated at the beginning of our estimates, the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services business plan for 1995-96. The member is asking about the ministry's vision. He will find that on pages 18 and 19 with respect to our program responsibilities.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I have failed miserably in seeking to encourage the minister to give members a more tangible, more concrete measure or indicator by which to measure the success or lack of success of her ministry.
I will leave with this question to the minister: should government members not be endeavouring, in this day and age of scarce resources, in presenting a program and expending public dollars, to be in a better position at the conclusion of that fiscal cycle to say -- and this is only one program -- that this is what we spent, this is what we intend to spend, this is what the objectives are, and this is how we intend to measure them?
My question/statement to the minister is that the exchange we have had indicates to me that we are some way off from being able to engage in that level of debate. I find that sad, and I wonder if the minister foresees a day when that may change.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The sort of debate that the member is hoping to engage in is one that I both love and appreciate. Having said that, I'd like to refer the member to my opening statement. We took a full half-hour, and were cut off, in talking about not only the vision but the measurement tools and our successes in the past year, as well as indicating the direction for the coming year's work plan.
L. Hanson: I listened with interest to the minister's statement about a 20 percent reduction in the number of complaints on door-to-door selling. I suppose a significant question to ask is: 20 percent of what? Is it 20 percent of ten sellers or 20 percent of 10,000? I'm sure the minister will give us some idea of what that is.
I really wanted to ask a question dealing with the automobile industry, and that's to do with the Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan that the minister announced some interest in some time ago. Where is it standing now? What is the progress? Is it going to happen? Can the minister enlighten us on the current situation?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The program that the member is referring to is CAMVAP. It's happening. There have been a number of meetings and, as a matter of fact, there's a meeting in Toronto on Monday.
[ Page 14019 ]
L. Hanson: Well, it's happening, yes. I suppose that it is a court of appeal for automobile purchasers who are unhappy with the quality of the product they've purchased. But to describe it as happening -- does that mean that there is an avenue now for those complaints to be answered? Is there a judicial process or a semi-judicial process to evaluate the complaint? And what is it?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I was simply responding to the member's question: "Is it happening?" And the answer is yes.
One of the requirements for this province to sit on that board was that there be a full reporting of the work of CAMVAP. The annual report will be coming out very soon, and provided with that report will be the statistical information with regard to arbitrations across Canada. The Better Business Bureau is the contact in this province, and it contracts with arbitrators in dealing with specific cases. So individuals who are interested or who have complaints or who are seeking relief would contact the Better Business Bureau and would be directed to an arbitrator.
[4:45]
L. Hanson: Just one final question. The automobile manufacturers, of course, are very heavily involved in it, and they have bought into the process in a cooperative manner. Is that what I hear the minister say?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The board is made up of one-third manufacturers, one-third consumers and one-third provincial representatives. The manufacturers pay for the operations of CAMVAP and obviously live up to the decisions of arbitrators through their commitment and involvement in CAMVAP.
R. Chisholm: First, I would like to congratulate the minister on her recent battles on behalf of consumers, and that's to do with the cablevision.... Fortunately, I have Shaw Cable in my riding, so I didn't have quite the same problems as other people had. On behalf of homeowners with radiant heating panels, I'd like to congratulate her again on the Canadian Standards Association, and the moves that she made in that area.
But now I'd like to offer a challenge to the minister. I'm going to send a newspaper clipping across to you. It will get there eventually. This is an advertisement that is promoting bicycle helmets. It was placed in a newspaper in Victoria by the Capital Regional District. It says, in part, to protect yourself with a CSA-approved helmet. I'm not casting aspersions on the manufacturer, but these days I can't help but wonder just what CSA really means, given the experience with the organization in recent months. Bicycle helmets are pretty important, and I'm sending this to the minister to get comments from her. I'm wondering whether her ministry would look into this and just what CSA means in terms of bicycle helmets. Is it appropriate that her ministry look into it? It is a test question of sorts, because if we can't turn to you, who can we turn to?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have two comments. First, the support for wearing bicycle helmets is one that I feel very comfortable about from our government's perspective. Second, the role of the CSA as a regulatory body is an important one in Canada and needs to be examined and enhanced in the most constructive way. It also needs to be supported by Canadians, particularly in a time when we are seeing markets throughout North America becoming deregulated. I think there is a heightened need for a strong consumer watchdog and a strong role for consumer protection, both in this province and in Canada.
The member was not in the room when we dealt with the issue of radiant ceiling panels, so I'll simply repeat the disappointment that our government has in the budgetary decisions made by the federal Liberals. They have abandoned consumers and have instead chosen to enhance their role with corporations through the deregulation of a number of marketplaces.
I would thank the member for bringing the issue of helmets to the attention of the members of this House. I would commit my support for that important safety provision in riding bicycles, an increasing recreational activity. I would also encourage the member to join with this government in bringing pressure on the federal government to protect consumers and take a strong role with regulatory bodies.
R. Chisholm: I would like to change the subject now and go on to housing. The minister launched her Homes B.C. program last June. You stated in your speech that 1,000 affordable housing units were to be built in 1994. I have a series of questions there that are generic, and then I'll get into my own riding. Can the minister supply to the committee the names of the companies which bid on this housing and the status of this housing at this point in time? Has it been completed? Who is building these units, and where have these units been built?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The expression-of-interest call was made at the end of June 1994. The awarding of unit allocation was made last fall, and B.C. Housing has been actively involved with those societies that have been awarded the unit allocation. The list was made public last fall, and we'll make certain that you have a copy of it. The progress of each development is varied, as the member can well imagine, depending on the approval process municipally, and other variables, project to project.
R. Chisholm: In the 1995 plan, how many units do you foresee being built? Is there a number you have as a goal you're trying to attain? How much will this program be enlarged in the coming years? I'm not trying to have you look into the crystal ball; I'm just asking if there is a reason for these cooperatives -- groups like Kiwanis -- to apply to get into cooperative housing with you in 1995.
Hon. J. Smallwood: As the member is well aware, the provincial initiative in the non-market housing sector has been well received throughout the province -- with some relief, I might add, in a time when other provinces have walked away from development of non-market housing. For the first time since World War II we no longer have a national housing strategy, thanks to the federal Liberals continuing with the Tory agenda. Having said that, our government leadership in this sector has been important and has supported some considerable innovation, where communities and the housing sector, and developers alike have met with the province in trying to utilize the tools made available to them.
It is early to comment on this year's program, so I won't get into that area with you at this time, but I think it is fair to say there is tremendous need in this province. We have the
[ Page 14020 ]
hottest housing market, the greatest pressure, which means, for the most part, that those who cannot participate on an even footing in the marketplace are severely disadvantaged.
R. Chisholm: I know plans have gone forward to the ministry prior to and after your government taking over, that they have been turned back and are to be presented again. I wonder if there are any right now from Chilliwack that are sitting in your ministry waiting for approval, or non-approval, and whether it would be worthwhile for these organizations to resubmit the plans returned to them as far back as two years ago.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me explain to the member the process after launching Homes B.C., our solely provincially funded housing program. An expression of interest is simply that; it's a call for communities and societies to put forward their plans and requests for unit allocation. The staff of B.C. Housing evaluate those expressions of interest. They look at the contributions being made. These can be varied; everything from land made available below cost to land contributed by churches and other organizations at no cost, as we have seen in the past. In looking at the expressions of interest that come forward, commitments are made to projects. We get significantly more than we can fund. In the last round -- and I'm giving you rough numbers -- we had approximately 100, and we were able to commit to some 30 developments. That means there are significantly more organizations and developments that either are not ready to move ahead or do not meet the target requirements. Having said that, and reiterating the fact that it is early to talk about this year's plans, I would simply encourage the member, if he has a development, to speak to my office, and we would be happy to look into it for him.
R. Chisholm: Again, you are calling it expressions of interest -- this type of thing. Have there been any expressions of interest from Chilliwack? My next area of endeavour would be especially in the area of seniors. We have an awful lot of seniors retiring into the Chilliwack area, and the housing is not there for them. I wonder if your ministry is putting any special emphasis on the seniors' area, especially with the population getting older and older. I see you do have it mentioned here on page 15, but you really haven't elaborated very much on it. I wonder if you could give me a bit of your vision of what you plan on doing in the area of seniors, especially. And when it comes down to service groups, how do they express their interest in applying for one of these programs?
Hon. J. Smallwood: One of the things that I did not make clear to the member is that when there is an expression of interest, there are time lines. There is an opening and closing, where groups are invited to put forward proposals. Those time lines for last year's programs are past, so the decisions have been made with regard to unit allocations. Having said that, with regard to seniors' development, in initiating the expression of interest call, we made it very clear that the demographics were such that in this province we needed to focus the limited resources that were available to us for family housing.
When you look at the demographics -- and the member makes the point with regard to an aging population -- and the issues around core need and who needs subsidized housing, it is very clear that seniors in the past have been the focus, and that the development of non-market housing has been weighted very heavily in the area of seniors' housing. Because of a conscientious decision -- and I actually find this quite encouraging -- of the community and of different levels of government, we have made a difference in seniors' lives. When you look at the instances of poverty and you look at the number of seniors living in core need, they are in a significantly better situation than, say, singles with children. In addition to that, we have a targeted program called SAFER -- and I am sure the member knows that -- where we actually provide for housing subsidies to reduce rent to accommodate seniors' housing needs.
[5:00]
So with those considerations, we have tried to focus the resources that we have on family housing. Where a community can make a good argument with regard to seniors' housing, we certainly listen to that. In addition, we have encouraged mixed housing, where seniors and families can be accommodated in the same complex.
R. Chisholm: I understand your point about family housing, and I appreciate that the need may be greater there in some areas. But has regionalization been taken into account in that decision? For instance, in Chilliwack we have an awful lot of seniors. We have seniors moving out from Vancouver to Chilliwack and retiring there. We have a greater number of seniors than we actually have of families, and I would have to estimate that our biggest problem would be the seniors' population.
I am just wondering if your ministry takes into account in regionalization that maybe it is unique for that area and that you need seniors more than you need families.
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's exactly the point I made. If communities can make a strong argument, we'll look at the developments. We have awarded unit allocations to seniors during 1994-95 in a number of different communities throughout the province, simply to emphasize that we are trying to prioritize unit allocations, and we have identified family housing as our number one....
R. Chisholm: I'll ask a question I have in that area, and I've asked it before. How many organizations from Chilliwack put in their applications in an expression of interest and were turned down? I know there were none authorized, so I was wondering how many were turned down. I know of two or three groups, like the Kiwanis, that have the projects, and I'm just wondering how far they got with it.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We don't have that information here, but we'll get that information and make it available to you.
R. Chisholm: Now I'd like to change the subject a little and go fishing a bit on housing. What I'm talking about -- to keep it all up front -- is CFB Chilliwack. I'm talking about what your ministry's role might be in case we have an emergency or a disaster of some sort -- whether it be flooding, earthquake or whatever -- and whether your ministry has any responsibility in supplying housing in that kind of problem.
I look at the PEP program that we have here, and I find that housing comes under Social Services. So I want to clarify
[ Page 14021 ]
whether your ministry has any responsibility there at all. Or is it strictly a Social Services responsibility under this program? I'm just trying to get clarification in order to ask questions in other areas.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Not only does our ministry partner with Social Services in regard to housing, but a member of our staff in B.C. Housing was recognized because of the work he has done with regard to the emergency preparedness program. It was an International Red Cross award that he received just this past year. So not only has the work been recognized because of its overall contribution, but the level of recognition, I think, is an indicator of the good work done.
R. Chisholm: I find that rather interesting, considering that if you take a look at the PEP book, it doesn't include your ministry at all. If you take a look at the flow chart, again it doesn't.... Maybe you could explain exactly what the responsibilities of the individuals within your ministry are, and maybe that can be rectified so that when people look at this, they can understand exactly who has responsibility for what within this flow chart and within this program called PEP.
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to point out to the member that the provincial field response graph that he is sharing with us is dated April 1992. Our ministry didn't exist then. That's one reason why we're not on this graph.
Secondly, our responsibility has to do with earthquake preparedness.
R. Chisholm: I appreciate that your ministry didn't exist at that time. It doesn't bode well for the rest of this plan, I'm afraid, for the province.
Could you explain exactly what your responsibility in your ministry is -- because this particular plan doesn't -- in the earthquake response area?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Just to clarify for the member, in the area that is called Social Services, I venture to suggest that in April 1992, Social Services was Social Services and Housing. So to indicate that that ministry was responsible does not in any way suggest that housing....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm being corrected, and quite rightfully so. It was Municipal Affairs that had the responsibility for housing.
At any rate, it's very difficult to deal with the overall document that you have and respond to either without having an opportunity to consider it. Our involvement is as a contracted agency for the provincial emergency program and is specific to housing and earthquake preparedness. I venture to say that the development of emergency services in the province has moved beyond the document that you have, but without seeing it, it would be difficult for me to say.
R. Chisholm: Then I take it that the responsibility of this ministry would be just over contracting housing for those left homeless by an earthquake? I gather that would be your only responsibility towards PEP under, let's say, the new umbrella? Please clarify exactly what the ministry's responsibility is, because when I go to talk to PEP again, I'm going to have address this situation. They don't cover it in their documentation.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I understand the question to be: is our sole responsibility housing? The answer is yes.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for the clarification of that, because it was rather confusing for me.
Finally, could the minister talk about FTEs for a minute and B.C. Housing staff numbers for the fiscal years 1994-95 and 1995-96? The minister said in her opening statement that there were 260 ministry staff and 337 B.C. Housing staff. What were the numbers for 1994-95, and what will they be for 1995-96?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We're getting those numbers for you. I'm not sure that the member understands that there is a difference: ministry FTEs are included in the government FTE count, whereas B.C. Housing FTEs are not.
The ministry FTEs totalled 205 in 1994-95 and will total 260 in 1995-96. The largest portion of growth is with respect to developments on the residential tenancy side. B.C. Housing FTEs in 1994-95 were roughly 327; in 1995-96 the number will be 337.
R. Chisholm: In terms of accountability, is the minister aware of any severance payouts from her ministry during the last year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: No, not in the ministry.
R. Chisholm: My last question is also on accountability. Could the minister briefly outline what expenditures have been made during the past fiscal year for advertising in your ministry? If there is a list, would she care to share that with me? It would make it far easier, I suppose.
Could she list the projects, the lead agencies that were on each of those projects and basically what amounts were paid out on each of those projects?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We could certainly make that detailed information breakdown available to you. But let me take the opportunity to respond in general terms. Our communications branch in the ministry has, since the ministry was created, focused a great deal of attention on initiatives around the residential tenancy amendments. I'm sure the member saw the ads at bus stops and on transit and saw some of the ads that were in the newspaper, but it was a very modest campaign. The only other sort of communication expenditure has had to do with the development of both internal and external information packages, such as the guide to landlords and tenants, and some of the work done with respect to some of the legislative initiatives in the last short while. But I believe it's fair to say that by comparison to other ministries, they have all been very modest.
I'll give you some rough numbers, and if the member wants more of a breakdown, we'll provide that for him. First of all, in the discretionary advertising category for 1994-95 -- and I'm rounding -- it was $226,000; in 1995-96, it's $289,000. In statutory advertising, it was $10,000 in 1994-95, and in 1995-96, it's $6,900.
[ Page 14022 ]
Again, I want to make the point that that is a fairly broad catchment. It not only deals with what we might consider to be advertising, but it also includes the development of pamphlets.
A. Hagen: First of all, let me preface my question by saying that the issue I want to speak with the minister about is one that covers a jurisdiction of a ministry besides her own. But I wonder if she could, just very briefly, give the committee some information about the status of the radiant heating panel mediation process that is in progress. I realize that she can't provide us with concrete information, but I would be particularly interested to know the minister's prediction about when the affected people -- some of whom are in my riding -- may expect to get some information about the outcome of this mediation and the redress, which I know all of them are hoping will be available to them as a result of this process that she and other parties have put into place.
[5:15]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I would like to thank the member for the question and to recognize the strong advocacy the member has provided on behalf of her constituents. As the member is aware, the mediation process is not a government table. The government is there as one of the participants. My information is that the process is proceeding positively, and the next meeting is June 2. Over and above those comments, I don't have any further information. The business is the business of that table, and until such time as the chair makes that business public, I believe none of the participants will be speaking to it.
A. Hagen: I don't want to put the minister on the spot, but can she give us any sense of the length of time that we might reasonably anticipate would still be required for a report to come forward? We are into the summer right now and the heaters are off. People are waiting, but there is anxiety. I realize that she's just told us that the government sits at the table, but it's not a government table. If there is any information that she cares to put on the record at this stage, and I put it forward recognizing that there are limits to what the minister can say.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd simply add that the tables are working very productively, and there's a great deal of energy going into discussing their mutual issues. It is my understanding that they're meeting approximately every two weeks, on weekends. I think an indicator of good news is that we are no longer hearing the sort of public negotiations that we heard early on in the process. Beyond that, I don't have an indicator as to how long that process will take. That table -- and I think it is very clear by the commitment of the parties involved -- is seen as the best way to expedite a remedy for consumers. It will be far more timely than, say, a court challenge, and far less expensive. Because of the complexity of the issues involved with the individual consumers, I think it is well recognized that the remedies are likely to be far more practical than other legal solutions.
A. Hagen: Because I haven't been here for all of the discussion, I may be, in this next question, canvassing some discussion that's taken place earlier. I know this minister is extremely interested in the issue of co-ops and co-op housing. Many of the co-ops are now coming to the end of their mortgages -- I guess you could say. There are really significant policy issues emerging which people who live in these co-ops and who believe in the value of the structure of their communal living are facing.
I'd like to hear the minister comment on the issue of some groups that are working around the concept of land trusts and ways in which we can, in fact, ensure that lands continue to stay in perpetuity in a social housing construct, however that may evolve over time. And with all the difficulties there are with the federal government -- the federal Liberals having supported the withdrawal, entirely, of any federal role in housing policy, which was one of the most shocking and short-sighted decisions that we've seen from this federal government.... I think it's a very interesting concept. It's one that I've certainly been briefed on and find myself looking at as a tool: that we may work on in the cooperative way of working in partnership with people in the community to support this government's vision around trying to provide social housing with the limited means that we now have available to us.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me assure the member that our ministry has been very supportive of the community lands trust that is being developed in this province. We've had an opportunity to support that organization in a number of different ways. Specifically, with regard to the member's concern around the leases for six outstanding co-ops, let me put it into perspective. The previous government had a number -- I believe it was 19 -- under the Ministry of Finance. During their privatization initiative, they encouraged the selling of co-op land. We've seen a real overall threat to the co-op stock where one of the co-ops that took advantage of that privatization of land then took what it considered to be the next logical step: making personal profit from what was intended as a non-profit cooperative venture, one where we saw significant public money.
The province is in a position now where we have stopped that initiative and protected that stock. We are now looking at the remaining six cooperatives that are held by the Ministry of Finance, which administers the ongoing lease for those lands. Very shortly, we will have an opportunity to deal with the policy question with regard to the protection of that land and the question of the lands trust. But until such time as those policy decisions have been made, I can't comment any more than to reiterate the commitment of this province and this ministry to cooperatives, affordable housing, protecting them both in perpetuity and, specifically, our overall commitment to the lands trust.
J. Dalton: I'd like to raise just two or three questions on other consumer protection issues. I presume we'll be getting to the adjournment point very soon.
I wanted to ask earlier, and I didn't get the opportunity, about these new residential tenancy offices that are being opened or being planned. Can the minister advise the committee as to the cost of the projected new offices and the overall cost of the residential tenancy branches -- that is, the information branches -- in the budget for that part of her ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The commitment to improved access throughout the province will cost approximately $2.5 million.
[ Page 14023 ]
J. Dalton: It's nice, at times, to get quick figures like that. I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that we're here, of course, to extract information on the expenditure of money. Too often, I think we tend to get sidetracked.
With regard to the issue of financing these offices, given the ministry's mandate in consumer protection and other areas, has there been any consideration given to consolidating offices so that we don't have a residential tenancy branch in this community and a consumer protection information office elsewhere? We might be able to generate a better overall plan so that the consumer -- not just the rental consumer, because that's important, but it's not the only thing, of course.... Can the minister advise us of an overall plan that will make it more efficient for the consumer and, of course, more cost-effective?
Hon. J. Smallwood: There certainly is consideration. In developing our new programs in the past year, we have consolidated offices. There is a direct benefit not only in providing the consolidation of the services that we can provide, but there's also an enhancement of our ability to function as a ministry, to share information and to support each other through the use of consumer ops -- as an example, the investigations with the residential tenancy branch. We have taken that into consideration and have consolidated wherever possible.
J. Dalton: It's encouraging to hear that, and certainly I and all members of the Liberal caucus would encourage not just this ministry but all others as well to explore those initiatives. It is certainly important, both from the consumers' access point of view.... I might, just as an aside, tell the minister that relatively few complaints come to my constituency office about trying to get through to the residential tenancy branch, but we certainly get a wealth of complaints about trying to get through on other government phones. I guess family maintenance enforcement is one that comes to mind. So any time we can be exploring avenues to increase the efficiency and reduce the frustration level.... There is an irony built into it, in that if a consumer can't get to the government information office that he or she is seeking, then, of course, they are already frustrated and then that frustration level just goes beyond the ceiling.
There's one other point I would like to make, and then we can, presumably, entertain an adjournment motion. The minister has referred at least twice today in her estimates to the successful prosecution of the home contractor in the Kootenays, which is fine. I am happy to see, as part of the result in that particular prosecution, that restitution was ordered to the victims in the amount of $36,500. Can the minister advise us as to how effective such an order will be? I am thinking more from the point of view of wanting to get money back to the people who got, quite frankly, ripped off in this case. Will such a prosecution, with a restitution order built into it, be truly effective, or should the ministry be considering perhaps the avenue of civil process?
I guess I would add as an adjunct to that: does the ministry still assist consumers in civil actions if they feel it is warranted? This is, of course, basically a criminal prosecution -- or we should say quasi-criminal; this is not a criminal code, but it's prosecution under the provincial statute. Can the minister advise us how effective she feels such an order will be? Are civil actions on behalf of consumers still being used, and are they effective?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I am going to refer the member to our introductory comments, because our ministry is being very effective, not only on behalf of consumers in redress restitution but also in our debtor assistance branch, in recovering money for small business for credit obligations. With regard to restitution and other forms of redress, in this '94-95 period, for a total of 791 consumers, we have recovered $800,000. I think that is significant. While I'm unable to speak specifically to court redress, the ministry has been very effective overall in this past year.
J. Dalton: As I indicated when I got to my feet, we're obviously getting to the point.... In fact, I think that point has arrived. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]