1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MAY 5, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 19, Number 17
[ Page 14025 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
J. Beattie: It's a pleasure for me to welcome some good friends to the Legislature today. From my town of Penticton there are two grade 10 classes from McNicoll Park Junior Secondary School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Lea Sutherland and Bob Brownell, two strong supporters of teaching young adults about politics. I have spoken to their classes a number of times over the last couple of years, and I really appreciate the effort they put into teaching young people about politics and bringing them down here. Please welcome the students from McNicoll Park.
PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND SUPPORTING OUR ECONOMY
M. Farnworth: Yesterday I participated, as did a number of my colleagues, in one of the proudest moments I think each of us had as members in this House, which is the realization of a dream that has been the goal of many of my constituents and many of the groups and organizations concerned with protecting environments in the lower mainland of British Columbia. It was the achievement of a partnership with the GVRD, many communities in the province and the Lower Mainland Nature Legacy fund, in the creation of some 13 island regional parks.
These are described as a string of emerald gems in the Fraser River. They range from the westernmost portion of the Fraser delta down on Westam Island, all the way up to Douglas Island in my constituency, and further on up Surrey Bend and other islands in the Fraser. They represent a unique opportunity to show people that we can protect the environment and at the same time create jobs, and that environmental protection and a sustainable economy are intertwined and not mutually exclusive of each other. For too long in this province we have taken the approach that environmental protection stands in the way of creating jobs and making a profit, and that environmental protection is red tape to those whose main concern is the business of making money.
This government has shown that it doesn't have to be that way. While other provinces refuse to even consider the fact that the environment and job creation can go hand in hand, this province is leading the way. Currently, as we move to the creation of 12 percent protection of our land base in this province for future generations, our parks are creating some $400 million a year in economic spinoffs. Those are spinoffs from people working within the parks; that's tourism jobs. It's becoming more and more recognized in other parts of this country and in other nations -- particularly south of the border, and in Western Europe and Japan -- that British Columbia has a unique environment that is attracting worldwide recognition and hundreds of thousands of tourists a year.
Tourism is becoming more and more the lifeblood of smaller communities, a stabilizing influence in towns that until recently depended upon one resource, and a resource that too often did not provide a sense of permanence. That resource -- that mill -- could close or could move to some other location, or the town would close if a mine ran out. But now tourism is stepping in to provide another leg for towns to stand on. This government is encouraging that. It is encouraging that by bringing people to the table to help make land use decisions, to form partnerships, to acquire parkland, and then to sit down with local communities and determine what is the best use. How do we now weigh the value of preservation in terms of tourism, in terms of local recreational opportunities and in terms of the level of development that will take place in that particular park?
In the lower mainland, as I said, in those islands that were set aside yesterday, a number will become regional parks which will have development take place through the creation of amenities, trails and interpretation centres, and they will become destination points for people in the lower mainland. Others will exist primarily as they are -- unspoiled -- and will serve the values of habitat protection and wildlife protection. But whatever form they take, they will contribute to our local economy, because we believe that the two are combined. I look forward to my respondents' comments.
A. Warnke: I've listened to the comments of the hon. member for Port Coquitlam with a lot of interest. I would say that perhaps what we need is a whole new way of looking at the economy and the ecology. Indeed, we can take a page out of the Brundtland report. I think it is extremely important, if members are not acquainted with it, to hear it now:
"We have in the past been concerned about the impacts of economic growth upon the environment. We are now forced to concern ourselves with the impacts of ecological stress -- degradation of soils, water regimes, atmosphere and forests -- upon our economic prospects. We have been forced to face up to a sharp increase...to economic interdependence among nations. We are now forced to accustom ourselves to an accelerating ecological interdependence among nations. Ecology and economy are becoming more interwoven locally, regionally, nationally and globally into a seamless net of causes and effects."
That pretty well summarizes, I think, the challenge to political leaders. Indeed, the direction Canada is taking towards preserving its parks and its environment adds to the fact that Canada has been seen as the most desirable place to live. This is the reason Canadians can provide a model for the rest of the world.
When we take a look at the relationship between the economy and the environment, we have to focus on a couple of things. When we talk about the depletion of resources, we are at a stage where it's not just a concern for the so-called non-renewable resources. Indeed, fossil fuels such as coal.... We have a supply of coal for 200 years. But we have to begin to think about so-called renewable resources as well -- that they are depleting. Our marine stocks, especially our fisheries -- I just commented on that last week, I believe -- and our topsoil, forests and water are being exploited faster than they are being regenerated. We have to be concerned about our pollution, and all the rest of it.
[10:15]
I don't have the time tto go into it in detail, but we have to make sense of sustainability. There are different ways to do this. We could provide financial incentives, and I believe there is a way to provide incentives in such a way that we can meld
[ Page 14026 ]
the economy and the ecology to make this a desirable place to live. Placing emphasis on parks and looking at the potential for tourism, for local recreation opportunities and what not, is something all Canadians value. That is the reason we are headed in this direction. We can provide a model for international environment agreements. We can set a model for what is not just a standard of living on the basis of real disposable income, but real disposable income plus a quality of life.
In putting forward what the government has, I want to make one extra appeal. That is for the protection of Shady Island, just off Steveston. It is in the middle of the Fraser River. This is one area that has been built up in the last 100 years as a result of silt flowing down the Fraser and building up a beautiful little forest park. Shady Island should never be developed with highrises or anything like that, or fancy bridges and what not. This is a very important island to protect. I found it interesting that it was missed. I would urge this government to include Shady Island, off Steveston, as part of the parks. If the hon. member can do whatever he can -- and I appreciate his remarks -- to convince the government to add Shady Island to the parks, I would most appreciate it. Certainly the people of Steveston would appreciate it.
M. Farnworth: I know my own constituents are rapidly becoming aware that I can be a bit of a rainmaker in achieving things like Douglas Island and Colony Farm, at the mouth of the Coquitlam River. I'd be more than happy to see if we can work some magic out in Shady Island. I'll resist the temptation to make comments about spending more, but I appreciate what the hon. member is saying: that it is time -- particularly in the lower mainland, which is my perspective as a lower mainland representative, when we are being asked to absorb more and more people, when we are being asked to make sacrifices in terms of quality of life, to watch our communities such as Port Coquitlam change from having 8,000 people 20 years ago to over 40,000 people now, and to having another 20,000 people over the next ten or 15 years.... We want to ensure that those things that matter to our quality of life are protected environmentwise, because for too long, as I said, we have watched how the cost of one industry in terms of environmental damage has been sloughed off and has become the price another industry has had to pay -- too often with a shutdown. The one that comes to mind is the Howe Sound fisheries and the crab fisheries, where refusal to pay attention to effluent standards, for example, led to the contamination of fish stocks, crab stocks and shellfish stocks and the closure of the fishery. For too long that was just dismissed with: "Well, that is the cost of doing business in the pulp industry; and as to the fishing industry, well, I'm very sorry if it's closed and there are layoffs, and you now have to go further afield to catch a resource." We can no longer afford to do that.
When someone complains about the toughness of effluent regulations.... Yes, it imposes a cost on the pulp industry; but at the same time it is preserving a fish stock, a resource which is used by another segment of our economy. If we are to have true sustainability in our economy and true environmental protection, people have to realize that the two are related; as I said before, they are not mutually exclusive. If we can get that message out to the people -- to business, to the community and, in particular, to the government in this House -- we will have made tremendous steps toward bringing together environmental protection and the ability to create and sustain jobs on a permanent, long-term basis.
FIFTY YEARS LATER
F. Gingell: On May 4, 1945, Field Marshall Bernard Law Montgomery received the surrender of all German forces in northern Germany at Lunenberg Heath. Accordingly, at 8 o'clock in the morning on May 5, 50 years ago this very day, the guns fell silent across northwest Germany, encompassing the Canadian sector of the front. Two more days would pass before the unconditional surrender on all fronts was signed, and yet another before the official pronouncement of Victory in Europe Day in the Allied capitals.
Both my wife Betty and I remember the tumultuous celebrations on VE-Day. My wife joined the throng in Trafalgar Square; I went down to the RAF barrage balloon station, which was open to everyone, with some friends. I was too young to serve, being only 14. Pandemonium, joy, relief and noisy celebration were the order of the day, and never was a party so well justified. Six years of danger, of loss, of separation and fear were ended. The great and evil menace that had swept over Europe, plunging it into darkness, was no more.
Among the Canadian army in the field, there were celebrations. But the most common reaction among the troops at the front line was a relief that expressed itself in stunned silence and in some private and public tears. To be at war for so long, to lose comrades, to kill the enemy, to be converted to the ways of war and then to stop at the stroke of a pen....
The Canadian forces were among the outstanding combatants of the war. Always in the thick of the fighting in the North Atlantic, over London, Malta, Northern Europe, Dieppe, Hong Kong, in Italy on D-Day, at Falaise and in Holland, their pride in being Canadian always drove them to prove themselves the best. In Italy, a good deal of German intelligence work was directed at finding where the Canadians were, for where the Canadian troops were, there the attack would come. The Canadians were always in the thick of it. They were the best, and they paid the price for being the best. They were not fearless, but they were brave, and by conquering their fears, they conquered their enemies. The enemy across the fields was a familiar foe with whom it was often possible to find a true kinship in facing the perils common to both Jerry and Tommy.
In the last days of the war, the reasons for it became apparent once more. I listened recently to the Hon. Henry Bell-Irving, commander of B.C.'s own Seaforth Highlanders, describe the liberation of Amsterdam, where he came to fully realize what a gift freedom is and how honoured he felt that the Dutch people had shown him that. In an even more forceful though ghastly way, the liberation of the death camp Bergen-Belsen by the 21st Army group, of which the Canadians were a part, showed the true bestiality and pure evil of the Nazi regime. To those who know, it is obvious, but it bears repeating until everybody understands: the Nazis were cowards who slaughtered millions; they were sick and evil.
Their evil was not apparent to everyone in the beginning. Too often the servants of Satan come clothed as ministers of light. Their economic success with full employment, their elevation of some aspects of German folk culture, their emphasis on youth and their success in every field dazzled many Germans, who did not realize their peril; paradoxically, the German people themselves also came to suffer as victims of Naziism. But the signs were there for those who had eyes to see: a predilection for violence to achieve their ends, a willing-
[ Page 14027 ]
ness to pervert the truth, fomenting of racial hatred, a contempt for democracy, unreasonable fanaticism, false religion, brutality, duplicity, paranoia, hate. These, in the hands of powerful leaders, were acceptable to too many in the mainstream, and they triumphed.
To defeat them, we were forced to give our most precious gift: the lives of our men and women. The sacrifice was very great, but it was necessary, and there was, in truth, no avoiding it. As for the men and women who died, one can only repeat the words of Christ: "No greater love hath a man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends."
In the days between May 5 and VE-Day, much happened in Germany. All of Germany was united in one purpose: resisting the Russian advance while aiding millions of refugees to flee the peril of the Soviet army. I mention this because it is important to realize that as one terror ended, another began -- one which, if not as overtly perverted, was more protracted. The liberation won by war was, for many, not secured by peace. Now at last, the grip of communism on Europe has ended.
There will always be evil to fight, and in the past month this has been made evident once again. Hatred, paranoia, violence, racism, false religion and disregard for democracy all played their parts in the terrorist bombing in Oklahoma. It is more than disturbing to hear of the links to neo-Nazis and other racists. This must not be tolerated. The threat is real, and it is at hand. Even in our own province, such groups seek to establish themselves and spread their lies. If we do not learn the lessons of the last war and meet these threats when they are small, we dishonour the achievements of that war and the memory of the men and women who gave their lives in a just and honourable cause. If we lack the clarity to understand and the courage to oppose, then the sacrifice of half a century ago has in part been in vain. This must not be. The challenge remains. Let us not fail them.
A. Hagen: We are moved by the member's comments. For all of us, either directly in our personal memories or in the memories of our families, the events of the last war are a part of our history, personally and as a nation.
I want to make my comments today in respect to our Canadian men and women who were part of that time. Like the member, I remember those days. My fourteenth birthday was 50 years ago tomorrow, so I was in that transition from childhood to girlhood. I lived in Sydney, Nova Scotia, which had an air base and a naval base. The war was very real for us there, not in terms as direct as for the member opposite who lived in Britain, but in the peril we saw. Every morning in school we sang:
Eternal Father, strong to save Whose arm doth bind the restless wave For those in peril on the sea.
Those in peril on the sea were the men and women who went out from our shores.
For me, the war was a time when the world became a more steady place, because all of a sudden many people -- men and women -- were at work, whereas in my girlhood they had not been at work. All of a sudden, a nation came together, because there was a moral cause in which we all profoundly believed, and the member has spoken of that moral cause very strongly this morning. We huddled around the radio. We listened to Gracie Fields singing, "Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye," and we hoped that Vera Lynn's words
There'll be bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover Tomorrow when the world is free
would be something that happened sooner rather than later. All of us lived through direct loss: loss of friends, of relatives, of people in our community. Because I lived in a town which was a marshalling area, we came to know many of those people.
[10:30]
We came together as a nation at that time. I believe that one of the results of the war was that we began to formulate what we are as a nation and, as the member has said, what we as a nation must struggle to preserve, even in these times where evil and death are around us. When I think of personnel bombs coming across the air into Zagreb and killing women, children and artists, we know that the world around us is evil. And we could talk of many other instances.
But let's think about some of the things that came out of that war. All of a sudden, the ordinary man and woman came back to our shores -- into Halifax, into Montreal -- as heroes. There was a world for them now to return to, having served their country and the cause of freedom and survived, as many of them did, in spite of those who died.
When they came back, there was a recognition that we couldn't go back to the years of the Depression and that there were tasks we needed to take on at that time. I went to university and probably would never have been able to go to university had it not been for the war. My classmates were veterans -- men, mostly, and a few women -- who would never have had an education if there hadn't been a recognition that we needed to provide for people to gain skills for our society as it emerged out of the Depression and the war.
Many of those men and women came back into a world where they had really lost their formative years. So there were opportunities to build farms and homes. The Veterans' Land Act was put in place at that time -- a national housing strategy, if you like -- so people could settle and begin to build their lives. As the member noted, we opened our doors to people from eastern Europe. My family had, every year, a displaced family in our homes in Sydney and on our small farm, as they established themselves in Canada. There were people from Poland, Latvia and the Netherlands who came into our lives and began to build the country that is here today.
So as I look back over those 50 years and at the experience of the war as I felt it and knew it as a child, I look too at what we as Canadians decided we would build, coming out of that war. It was a recognition that every person in our society was an important person and that they needed an opportunity. Women still had to wait another 20 years, because women were put back into the homes; they were forgotten. Nellie the riveter went back to being mom the cook. Some of them had to wait a while for their destiny. But the war began to form the world that we know now. It's a world that we need to preserve in Canada, because it is a kinder, gentler, more democratic place. We in this House need to work hard to preserve that as a model for the world as we look at the evil that is still around us.
I thank the member for his statement today and for the opportunity to speak.
[ Page 14028 ]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Delta South is concluding?
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, I just wish to thank the member for New Westminster for her remarks.
G. Wilson: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: I can think of no more fitting time to introduce a delegation of Navy League sea cadets from Powell River who are in the precincts today and who have, I think, enjoyed listening to the remarks from the two members. The sea cadets are with us today and will be preparing for a major tattoo performance in Powell River in celebration of the Navy League cadet program.
The Navy League program was established in 1895 to bring attention to the requirement for the maritime defence of Canada, which speaks directly to the comments the member has just referred to relating to the Second World War. I would ask the House to make these cadets welcome.
MEETING HEALTH CARE NEEDS IN GROWING COMMUNITIES
S. Hammell: A week today on Friday, May 12, I will be privileged to take part in the official opening of the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre at Surrey Memorial Hospital. It does tie in with the last two speakers, when we consider that health care is something that we have established since the war and is a defining characteristic of what it is to be Canadian.
The new facility will provide cancer care and treatment for people who live in communities from Delta in the west to White Rock in the south, and up the Fraser Valley to Hope. The Fraser Valley Cancer Centre is the third full-service facility to be built in this province. Medical practitioners have welcomed this government's initiative. Dr. Ed Kostashuk, vice-president and director of the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre says: "When you bring care closer to home, it makes sense to go where there is a significant population base." Dr. Kostashuk is right. This government is committed to policies that put the money where the people are, investing in the health of British Columbians.
The people of the Fraser Valley know how important it is to have cancer treatment accessible to patients and their families. We hear a lot of talk on the national news about other provincial governments shutting down hospitals and turning the responsibility for health care over to the private sector. Sometimes it appears that governments across the country are passing the buck, saying: "Let someone else do it." The federal government says: "Let the provinces do it." I can foresee the day when our neighbours to the east will say to Albertans who are looking for health care: "Let British Columbians do it." The trouble is that neither one of them really wants to pass the buck, but keeps the bucks to themselves and passes the demand for service on to us as a provincial sector. Those of us who live in the Fraser Valley, especially those who have relatives and friends who are receiving treatment for cancer, know that the government of British Columbia is investing our tax bucks in health care delivery. They are making services more efficient so that we can continue to invest in the people of this province -- in their health care, and in their well-being.
Delivering oncology services on a cost-effective basis is a way of life for the British Columbia Cancer Agency. They support 21 travelling consultative clinics and 14 chemotherapy programs, in conjunction with community and regional hospitals. Partnerships like this create long-term relationships that will continue to provide reliable service delivery across this province. The Fraser Valley Cancer Centre has its chemotherapy service up and running. The first radiation treatment machine started operating on April 3; a second machine will be ready mid-May; by October two additional machines will be functioning. Staff at the centre tell me that they expect to treat 1,500 new patients this year, growing to about 2,500 new patients when they are at maximum capacity. It is very clear that the government of British Columbia is investing in the people at the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre. There is an experienced staff of medical and radiation oncologists, social workers, nurses, radiation therapists, pharmacists, nutritionists and support staff working in that new centre.
The expansion of our population and the strengthening of our economy provide the demand and the resources to build the services for the future. The government is committed to investing about $70 million new dollars for the expansion of cancer treatment services in the province over the next three to four years. We'll see the opening of a new clinic in Kelowna and the expansion of the Victoria clinic. The centre for breast cancer prevention, treatment and research will improve breast cancer diagnosis and evaluate existing programs. That is a $750,000 investment in women's health, which will result in quality care for women who have had an abnormal mammogram, and unnecessary operations will be reduced. All these initiatives are part of a comprehensive plan to provide the best possible care for cancer patients now and in the future.
This government isn't passing the buck. It is investing bucks where British Columbians have told us they want first-quality, reliable services. With the kind of teamwork that has built the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre, bringing together Surrey Memorial Hospital, the B.C. Cancer Control Agency, the Ministry of Health and local communities, we are securing the future health of Fraser Valley residents. I ask hon. members to join me in congratulating the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre, the British Columbia Cancer Control Agency and Surrey Memorial Hospital as they begin the task of serving cancer patients and their families in the Fraser Valley.
J. Dalton: Last week at this time I had the privilege of responding to the member for Vancouver-Fraserview when he commented on two Vancouver hospitals. I'm pleased to be back on my feet this week to respond to the member for Surrey-Green Timbers and her comments about the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre and, more importantly, about bringing more health facilities to our ever-growing communities. The member did comment, and quite rightly, about the growing population in the Fraser Valley. I guess I could say that all members of the Liberal caucus had the privilege in the last two weeks or so to spend a fair amount of time in part of the Fraser Valley -- successfully, I might add. We have seen firsthand the growing residential areas of Abbotsford, Matsqui, Chilliwack and all the other parts of the valley. So it is quite appropriate, as the member commented, to bring the facilities to where the population is. No doubt the Closer to Home philosophy that Peter Seaton dealt with in his royal commission is one that we all have to aim for and try to implement as best we can. I think the example of the Fraser
[ Page 14029 ]
Valley Cancer Centre, which the member has pointed out, is one that we can all look at.
The member commented that we have to spend the money where the people are. That is true, but, of course, we also have to be mindful that the people of this province are gathering in ever-greater numbers in many other communities. We must not just spend our time thinking of Closer to Home in our own neighbourhoods; we have to think of every neighbourhood in this province as to where that money can best be spent. For example, the member commented on the proposed new cancer clinic in Kelowna. I guess we're all reminded of the promise that the Premier made during the '91 election to the people of that community. I'm sure the people of Kelowna are now, at least, happy to see that that promise will be fulfilled, even though it's four years late. That's an example where, again, there are growing communities, and our very precious tax dollars have to be spent in as wise a manner as possible in order to recognize the population pressures.
I would say in particular about cancer -- as the member has commented as well -- and especially breast cancer, which, of course, is such an insidious part of the disease of cancer in general that affects many, many women.... The members of the Liberal caucus would certainly be more than happy to applaud any endeavours that this government can do to address that particular problem.
I would remind all members of the House, even though this is not a day to get into partisan statements, as the Speaker has had to remind us from time to time.... Members should be reminded that it was the federal Liberals who brought in medicare, and I can assure all members opposite that the federal Liberals are the defenders of medicare. I say that because the member for Surrey-Green Timbers commented, and rightly, about the private sector involvement in some aspects of health delivery. That is a factor that we all have to address. The member added, in those particular comments, that some governments are passing the buck -- I believe her reference was -- onto the private sector.
I don't believe that that is an entirely accurate statement. The fact is that the buck that's being passed is an ever-shrinking buck. The taxpayer cannot be forever asked to provide more money for all the important services government has to try to provide. So we must be mindful, as governments are allegedly passing the buck, that what governments are doing -- hopefully this government as well -- is addressing the pressure on our tax dollars and trying to reduce deficit and debt. But there's no question, hon. members, that health care is number one on the Liberal list, just as I'm sure it is number one on the government list.
We will all work towards the philosophy of Closer to Home as exampled by the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre. We certainly welcome the announcement of that clinic, and we look forward to other initiatives that will help the other growing communities of this province.
[10:45]
The Speaker: The member for Surrey-Green Timbers concludes.
S. Hammell: If the member opposite had been listening, he would have realized that I said that other members were in fact not passing the buck; they were passing the service on to the provincial level from the federal level. In fact, the cuts in money from the federal level, which will affect our health care services, are coming in the next couple of years, and they will result in either a cutting of service or in the provincial sector having to find the bucks to maintain the service. That is a consequence of the federal government's decision around health care.
I would also like to just take issue with another comment that the hon. member made. If the hon. member actually thinks that you can fulfil the promise of delivering a cancer clinic in a shorter period of time than four years, then the member needs to re-examine how things are done. He suggests that the promise of building a cancer clinic in Kelowna is four years late. Well, it takes time to have these major facilities delivered.
I had the pleasure of walking through the cancer clinic in Surrey, and the technology and the construction that go into these facilities are absolutely mind-boggling. They drive major forms into the ground that are incredibly thick to protect the people working there, and the people in other areas, from the radiation that is sent from the machines. These facilities are complicated, they are expensive and they are indeed something that we should all treasure and value.
Again, I'd just like to mention that it is critical that services go out to the communities that are feeling the population explosion. When we have population coming into our community, and we have additional economic activity and the strengthening of the economy that has happened in the last three and four years, we then need to take the additional resources that generates and invest them in the future communities of our beautiful province. So I'm very, very pleased to see the opening of the new cancer clinic in Surrey.
ELECTORAL AND PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
G. Wilson: As I commence, I need to offer an apology to the young people that attended here, who I introduced as navy cadets. In fact, having slipped out to meet them and their commanding officer, Steve Rowe, they are indeed army cadets, and that's not a good mistake to make. I find out that there's quite a difference between army cadets and navy cadets. So for that I apologize. They are wonderful young people from Powell River, and I do wish them the best in Victoria.
My comments today relate around the topic of electoral and parliamentary reform. I become increasingly concerned as I see the mounting cynicism that is currently alive and well in the minds of so many of the electorate in the province of British Columbia. That cynicism is demonstrated often by a reluctance to get out to vote, a reluctance to get actively involved in the political process and a general attitude that politics is a dirty business. It's a business that many wouldn't want to enter into themselves, feeling that standing for elected office would cause them to suffer as a result of the kind of scrutiny that is often placed on people who enter into public life.
I think that our democracy.... We heard two speeches today with respect to the need to protect our democracy. Indeed, many people laid down their lives, as we come to this fiftieth anniversary of VE-Day. They laid down their lives in the protection and defence of democracy, therefore I think we have to recognize that the defence or protection of
[ Page 14030 ]
democracy is eternal vigilance. It is not only vigilance against an aggressor from outside, but vigilance against erosion from within.
I can see that the democratic process is founded in our parliamentary system and our parliamentary democracy on the basis of one person and one vote, and by the fact that every vote should count, and that those people who go to the polls should be going because they believe that they are going to go forward and vote for something that will be positive for themselves, for their family, for their communities and indeed for this province and this country.
Regrettably, we are fast becoming a community by which votes are essentially purchased. They're purchased by a highly financed and very slick backroom machinery that puts an ongoing barrage of information in the newspapers and on the radios that is very difficult to scrutinize and very difficult to understand. This is done by all of the political parties that have the moneys available. I don't point my finger at any one, but only a few political parties are able to secure that money.
I think we have to recognize that notwithstanding the tax break that people get -- and remember that it is essentially the taxpayer that ultimately is providing the subsidy for those people who put their dollars into political campaign donations -- very few parties actually benefit from that level of money. Those people who put that money in very often extract something for the contribution they make. Therefore they give money to their favourite political candidate because they anticipate that when that candidate gets elected, that candidate will deliver, for them and for the special interests that put the money in, the kinds of things that they wish to see implemented in the province.
Secondly, we have to recognize that those who are allowed to spend unrestricted dollars are also, in the limited period called the writ period -- 28 days -- able to put in front of people a tremendous barrage of information and all kinds of propaganda using the most highly sophisticated electronics communication technology that we know today, as well as newspaper publications, ads, leaflets and brochures. That tends to push a propaganda position that often cannot be countered by those who enter into the political spectrum with counterpoint ideas -- ideas that may be somewhat different from those with the money. What we end up with is a danger that we run politics for the rich -- politics that can be bought. And I say that it's time that it ended.
We propose that we should have legislation tabled in this House that would put strict spending limits of $25,000 per riding in a general election and $10,000 in a by-election. We propose that in terms of contribution in kind -- that is, things that are offered to candidates gratis -- they should also have an equivalent dollar value tied to it: $10,000 in a provincial election and $5,000 in a by-election.
We have just seen a by-election that would have been markedly different if we'd had these kinds of spending limits. We would have seen a by-election that would not have allowed for paid telephone campaigners and canvassers. We would have had, within that $15,000 limit, a much more even playing field for those people who stand as candidates and who bring forward their ideas, their views and their attitudes, which are relevant to their communities.
If we are to protect that democratic process in electoral reform, it is time that we put in strict spending limits, that we no longer allow politics to be the purview of the rich and that we make sure that those who would launder their money through all kinds of gratis events.... We have huge dinners set out at $175 a plate, and we know that corporations have bought the table. They have given away free tickets to the people who attend. We find those people appearing on a list of donors, when they did not in fact put their hands into their pockets and put out the $175. That is money laundering, and nothing short of it, and it should be illegal in British Columbia. What that does is put in place an extremely unfair limit.
Interjections.
G. Wilson: I hear members from the Liberal Party say: "Quit your whining." When the Liberal Party, under my leadership, was in a position to be putting it forward, that was the policy of the Liberal Party. We believed in an open and free democratic process; we didn't believe that we should have to buy elections. But now that it has become the party of Howe Street, obviously their attitudes have changed.
If we want to protect our democracy, we need to put in strict spending limits.
D. Schreck: When we talk about electoral and parliamentary reform, it is frequently tempting to get into the narrow aspects of the mechanics of running election campaigns. Some of those aspects brought up by the hon. leader of the Alliance Party are valid points for debate and, as signalled by government in the throne speech, will be debated later in this legislative session when a new election act comes before this chamber.
But before I turn to those points, I think it's important for all of us to understand that true reform of the process involves more than a few mechanical changes to the Election Act. In Canada we enjoy the highest rate of voter participation, at both the federal and the provincial levels, of any democracy in the world, save and except those where by law a person has to vote, like Australia. In fact, if we compare ourselves to our southern neighbour, the voter participation rate -- turnout to the polls -- in British Columbia or in Canadian federal elections is more than twice the voter participation rate in any U.S. state or in their recent presidential election. The same comparison holds true across the board when we look at other democracies where one has the choice of whether or not to vote.
When we compare that outstanding record, we have to ask ourselves why there is still a sense of frustration with the process. I think the answer is that most people want to participate at more than just election time. There's this black box we call government, and every one of us experiences the frustration of our individual constituents in trying to understand the system. In fact, I have to say that even as an elected member, I continue to experience that frustration as I try to understand the system.
[11:00]
I've spent virtually all of my adult life, at one side or the other, trying to understanding how government works, and now with the privilege of being an elected member, I have to say that much of it is still a mystery and will probably remain a mystery to my dying day. It is our duty, in terms of opening up the system, to try explaining differences more to our constituents and to allow our constituents to better understand how the system works.
[ Page 14031 ]
Just last night I returned the phone call of a constituent who is annoyed because her old age pension payment had been partially clawed back on her income tax. Everybody in this chamber knows the history of the federal government clawing back the old age pension payments; it's a federal issue. She called her Member of Parliament, Ted White, who said that it has nothing to do with the federal government, failing to acknowledge that the Reform Party wants to cut even deeper, and he referred the person to me, saying that it's a provincial issue. I say that is dishonesty. That is what leads to a distortion of our parliamentary system; that is what confuses the public. I would have expected a Reform member to have the honesty to say to this constituent: "It is a federal matter. I disagree with you, and my party wants to cut deeper." Reform at that level is as important as changes to the Election Act.
I agree with the hon. member when he talks about how we have to deal with problems such as travel agencies opening up their phone banks and not valuing that or disclosing it, particularly if those agencies which donate in kind have particular expectations of financial benefits or have received contracts in the past. Those matters must see the light of day, and I am looking forward to legislation being introduced in this session that will deal with those matters.
But I would say that at the end of the day, voters are too smart to have votes bought. In Abbotsford, the voter turnout was 43 percent. The majority of people in Abbotsford voted with their feet. It was an exception in Abbotsford, against the general rule in British Columbia. When my party was in opposition and went through six by-elections, the voter participation in those by-elections was equal to the voter participation in general elections. Something was missing in Abbotsford. People said: "We're going to stay home." That's where we need true reform.
G. Wilson: I would say as a caution to British Columbians that those people who are prepared to spend money to get elected are prepared to spend taxpayers' money to stay elected. One thing that we have seen time and time again as we get close to elections is government choosing to spend a great deal of money in ridings where they believe they can, in fact, end up winning. That's a practice that had perhaps been best developed through the so-called pavement politics of the past, where the former Social Credit Party, a party that is represented by one member here but no longer enjoying the kind of heyday that it has had, created that kind of process.
I don't speak today against any one political party. I speak for a need for us to get serious about making politics an honourable profession, into which people can come and enjoy a reasonably level playing field as they put forward their platform before the people. People should be voting on behalf of the individual who best represents their constituents, families and communities. It is time that people started to look at the contract that the parties put before them -- a detailed, written contract -- so that we understand what the parties stand for, not against. Politics in British Columbia has always -- certainly for the last 30 years -- degenerated into a mudslinging, name-calling kind of practice that I think really degenerates to a position where people indeed do stay home and simply wash their hands of it all.
If this province is to remain a strong and equal partner in a strong and united Canada, if we're to try and counter the forces that are now affecting us from a continental and indeed a global economy and if we're to look after the interests of future generations of British Columbians, we cannot afford to allow politics to become a practice for the rich. We cannot allow politics to become a practice for those who would simply go out and try -- through a massive media campaign highly financed by special interest groups, whether from the Left or the Right -- to buy the minds and votes of British Columbians.
We need to put in place strict electoral reform that puts on strict spending limits with clear disclosure, so the people know who is financing their politicians, who is behind the so-called party machinery and who are closeted in the back room pulling the strings of the puppets out there mouthing platitudes at the time of election. Those people in the back rooms will be determining the policies and agendas of the politicians when they are elected. If people want to know why politicians will say one thing at election time and do something else at the time they are in government, it is because they don't hear, know or see the people in the back room who are paying the money to make that government do what it's supposed to do when it's elected.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Members, that concludes private members' statements for the morning.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I call Committee of Supply for Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).
L. Fox: I followed the discussion on the Nisga'a claims at some length yesterday, and I was relieved at some of the minister's answers. I want to follow up on a couple of issues.
The minister talked about two forest licences. If I recall correctly, one was 150,000 cubic metres a year, and the other was in the vicinity of 300,000 cubic metres a year. With those licences, I would assume that there is ongoing investment that has been made by the licence holders over the last number of years. I want to find out what compensation would be made to those licence holders for any investment they've put into the licences over the course of the length of time that they've had the licences. This might have been in terms of infrastructure investment, perhaps silvicultural investment, timber-thinning -- those kinds of investments made by the licence holders.
Hon. J. Cashore: The 150,000 cubic metres would be acquired on the open market. It would be subject to the arrangements that are worked out as to how we would go about doing that, but it would be on the open market, presumably at market price. With regard to any other compensation issues, they would be negotiated at fair market value.
L. Fox: So is the minister suggesting that the compensation on all holdings of some form of land tenure -- whether that's in the forest industry, the mining industry or perhaps
[ Page 14032 ]
among the guide-outfitters and trappers -- will be negotiated on an independent basis?
Hon. J. Cashore: I was hearing the question in the context of the forest tenure issue, but with regard to any other kinds of activities on Crown land, our first principle is to seek to avoid any disruption. That's the number one principle. If in those instances it is unavoidable, our position is that we will seek to have fair compensation. Just to make it very clear, the province will avoid disruption of interests held on Crown land, where possible. If disruption occurs, compensation will be fair and consistently applied across the province in a timely manner.
L. Fox: I'm trying to put the minister's statement in context with the present situation around Lou Guery's trapline out in the Kluskus area, where he has virtually been forced out of business by a native band and has been unable to achieve any recognition for compensation by this government. I'm quite concerned that that precedent would be carried forward in the Nisga'a claims. Let me ask, then, about where a trapper may have a trapline, or a guide-outfitter may have a very successful business where they rely on that particular geographical location. Is the minister suggesting that there will indeed be an opportunity for those individuals to achieve fair compensation, because they may not want to work under the guidelines and the rules of the Nisga'a? They may just decide that that may not be in their best interests and that their best interests may be to sell their assets to the government.
Hon. J. Cashore: Through the Nisga'a negotiations and through the negotiations that come out of the B.C. Treaty Commission, our position is that where there is unavoidable disruption, there would be fair compensation. That is our position, and that is our requirement.
With regard to the specific instance the hon. member has referred to, I'm advised that we have received an expression of interest in this issue from the hon. member, and we will be getting back to him on that.
[11:15]
L. Fox: I appreciate the minister's words, but that expression of interest was well over a year ago, and I'm still waiting for the answer. However, I'll say this as well: it wasn't to this minister that I made it; it was to the Minister of Environment.
There is one more point that bothered me a bit, and I want the minister to clarify. My understanding is that there is a 300,000 cubic metre licence held in the Nisga'a region that is being negotiated and that a mill outside that region is dependent on that. What happens if the Nisga'a decide that the AAC set by the chief forester is too high, and they want to reduce it? It would cause extreme hardship on the manufacturing plant, and, as I'm sure the minister is well aware, we already have an overcapacity in most of the northern regions to cut versus the AAC available. What happens by way of compensation to that manufacturing plant, should the Nisga'a decide that they are going to reduce the AAC within their settlement?
Hon. J. Cashore: Our interest is to maintain the fibre supply through any impact that may be caused within the land area that is subject to the negotiations, and that is the interest we are representing on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
L. Fox: I will continue that line of questioning when we get to the Forests ministry estimates.
I want to touch on a number of issues that have been caused by the interim agreements signed, particularly with the Carrier-Sekani in the Prince George region and as well with the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en in the Smithers-Hazelton region. Because of that interim agreement, we see policies in the Lands ministry which have virtually given the native people in those regions veto power. In fact, with the exception of the McLeod Lake band, which has agreed to approve the purchases of recreational leases on Summit Lake, purchases are virtually frozen in all other lakes in the Prince George region.
I intended to take this up at some length with the Ministry of Lands, but as of today I'm not sure when those estimates will come forward. I want to discuss with the minister the basic principle around the idea of putting a definitive time frame on how long that consultation process should be. I have a number of landowners in my region who have been attempting to purchase their recreational lease lot for over a year and have been unable to do so. Could the minister give us some assurance that this government's looking at putting a time frame on that consultation process?
Hon. J. Cashore: First, I want to make it very clear there's no veto; the consultation process does not permit a veto. I do want to say, however, I think the hon. member is making a good point.
Hon. Chair, we cannot put out generic time frames, because each circumstance is different; but I have every confidence that under the terms of Delgamuukw, the government must operate within a limited time frame to ensure there can be closure on these issues, the appropriate consultation having been taken. His point's well taken, but I think it has to be done on a site-specific basis.
With regard to the extent to which Lands is involved in this process, it has its policy, which is consistent with the policy we have announced with regard to Delgamuukw. I would be glad to address any of these specifics again and take them up with that ministry.
I just want to go back to the previous question, where the hon. member referred to the harvest and where the fibre supply would be going, with regard to the Nisga'a. We have a position here that there would be a treaty requirement for a Nisga'a government to harvest a specified minimum amount from Nisga'a lands annually and sell to existing local mills. We would be addressing the issue the member raises in the treaty itself.
L. Fox: I just want to make the House aware that in the Prince George Lands ministry region, there are 565 recreational leaseholders, of which there are well over 100 presently caught up in the bureaucratic system. They've been held there, some for over a year. In at least two cases, the deposits were made a year ago to purchase the land; in fact, the Ministry of Lands has the cheques in its safe, and those individuals still have not been able to get title to their leased lots.
The magnitude of this problem is very severe. When I look at a recent article in the March 3 Citizen newspaper from Prince George, clearly the Fort George band.... I've pointed out that they're not prepared to enter into the process of
[ Page 14033 ]
consultation because they do not have the resources to deal with all the correspondence they're getting from the different ministries, and are looking for financial help from this government and from the federal government in order to gain those resources. Clearly the task that has been placed on these bands by this government is extremely onerous. While they may not, as the minister suggests, have a veto power in the consultation process, the effect of it is that when they do not consult, the hands of the bureaucrats within the Lands ministry are tied. They cannot transfer this land, because they have nothing on record that shows that they have consulted -- other than that letters have been sent out. The effect of it is that the native bands do have veto power.
I would urge the minister to come out with a policy on time frame guidelines as soon as possible. There may be some flexibility in it, but it at least provides the people within the Ministry of Lands the tools with which they can conclude these deals.
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to say something with regard to the question of referrals within the bureaucratic system. The hon. member made a good point. I hope it acknowledges that within the bureaucratic system, which is a necessary system that seeks to administer the affairs of the province, using good stewardship.... That involves other referrals, as well; it does not only involve referrals to first nations. I think that needs to be recognized, because there have been some instances where it has just been too convenient -- and this member is not doing this -- to infer that things are held up because of the Delgamuukw consultation process. I did not hear the interview, but I believe that there was a Lands official, a district manager from Prince George, who was interviewed on the CBC on this very issue two days ago. I think he made that point.
The point I want to make is that there is no veto. It's incumbent on government officials that after due diligence has been conducted with regard to the responsibility to consult, these processes should be moved forward and dealt with appropriately. Within the general operational guidelines on our Crown land activities policy, we have said that ministries should specify time frames that are consistent with statutory requirements and with the time lines that are generally followed for each Crown land activity. Ministries should specify the exceptions -- for example, under what circumstances any time lines would be extended for reasonable lengths of time if progress is being achieved. It's incumbent upon the officials in the line ministry to make a determination as to what next steps should be taken to seek to get a response or to move it forward if they are not getting a response. We are on very strong ground in sending out a clear signal that these should not be allowed to get caught up on this issue without coming to a resolution.
I appreciate the member raising this issue. It is a difficult issue, but I think we have to put it in perspective. It is not as though there is suddenly this bureaucratic consultation process, and somehow it's something that is happening because of the aboriginal people. Consultation processes out there are required in a wide variety of circumstances that have nothing to do with first nations. This is another element of that consultation that is required.
L. Fox: Perhaps I didn't make the point strongly enough; I'll make it stronger. I do believe that almost 90 percent of the 100-plus applications that are presently being held up in the regional office at Prince George are because they are unable to get letters of support from a native band -- in some cases two bands, because of the overlapping claims -- to acquire those particular parcels. In Smithers.... I have a letter here from another individual who indeed wrote to the Minister of Highways, who is her MLA, and suggested that this process has.... They were promised in early July last year, and to this point they still have not been able to acquire their land because the band fails to give permission to the ministry office to sell it. With that in mind, I would like to ask the minister if he would explain to me, so that I can tell my constituents, what he sees as due diligence in these matters. Is it three letters? Is it a registered letter going out with a demand for a reply within a certain time frame? Just exactly what does he see as due diligence? Because when I talk to bureaucrats within the Lands ministry, they're certainly not sure what due diligence is, and that's what's holding up the process.
Hon. J. Cashore: In order to define due diligence, we would need to know the circumstances in each particular instance. I think that the hon. member has made a valid point here -- that it appears that there could be a need to ensure that it's clearly recognized that after certain efforts are made, then that is sufficient. But I think we would have to look at it on a basis that's directly related to the exact circumstance. That's how that should be approached.
Again, with regard to the 90 percent.... With regard to the examples that he has referred to, I would want an opportunity to examine them with regard to whether or not there were other issues involved, so that in fairness we could ascertain what really is causing it to take that long. I think that long before the Delgamuukw issue came along, I sat in estimates, whether I was on that side of the House or this side of the House, and heard concerns expressed about how long some particular approval was taking. So it is true that this is an added responsibility of government coming out of a court-ordered approach, but at the same time I think we have to try to get that perspective on it. That's not to say in any way that this isn't a matter that is a very legitimate concern.
[11:30]
L. Fox: I would be more than pleased to supply the minister -- although I know he could access them through the lands office, the regional office in Prince George -- with a whole file of letters that I have from these individuals. He will see in all cases, at least in the ones that I've got, that they make reference to the lack of being able to consult, or that they must be able to consult with the native band; and in many instances the individuals are told to go personally to the native band because that might be their best hope. So I think there certainly is a need to have a more definitive policy and a better understanding for British Columbians.
There's one further question that I have with respect to this. I think one of the reasons we see so many folks wanting to rush out and buy these recreational lots is that there is a lot of concern that leases -- all forms of leases, whether it's agricultural leases, a recreational land lease, a trapline, or whatever.... There's a real concern that this government doesn't consider those as private land. Maybe the minister might want to clarify whether or not these leaseholds, which in many cases have substantial improvements built on them.... Whether it's a guide-outfitter's area or whether it's
[ Page 14034 ]
a recreational lot, in many cases substantial improvements have been made to those properties. Are those under the definition of private land that the minister used yesterday?
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to get on the record what our policy is. Private property is not on the table. We're referring to fee simple property; therefore, if there's a lease or a licence, we do not include that in the definition of fee simple property, which it is not.
With regard to leases and licences, all terms and conditions of provincial leases and licences will be met.
L. Fox: That leads me into one more question then. Given that in most cases the terms of a lease, especially a recreational lease -- there are a few exceptions -- are set by the assessed value placed on that property by the Assessment Authority, is the minister telling me that those responsibilities would be transferred over, in this case, to the Nisga'a, and the individual would continue to lease that property from the Nisga'a?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, this question is a bit of apples and oranges, in that it's taking one set of circumstances that he's dealing with in the Fraser Lake area and somehow overlaying that with the Nisga'a situation, which I don't think is a practical comparison. I don't think that that comparison really fits.
As long as we apply the principles I have cited that that deals with, as treaties become settled it will bring a certainty and a stability to this situation where we are dealing with that which under current circumstances is not clearly defined. So we are seeking, through treaties, to achieve that clear definition when a band has entered into the treaty-making process. With regard to Fraser Lake, we're dealing with a consultation requirement that is not, to my knowledge, within a treaty-making process at this time. So it's a bit of a stretch to try to overlay the Nisga'a onto that situation.
L. Fox: I apologize if I tried to stretch it, but I am really trying to get some comfort for those who have fairly large holdings and are very concerned that they're going to see this government negotiate away their investments. There are a number of retired individuals in the Prince George region who in the past have voted for this government and are very concerned that they don't see the government looking after their investments -- in many cases, their retirement. So when the minister suggests that the terms and conditions of the existing lease will be continued, that's very little comfort until we know on what basis and under what authority. That's what I'm really looking for.
G. Janssen: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Janssen: Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. The Dutch people want to say thank you to the Canadian people for their significant contribution to this very historic event.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome in the gallery today the consul of the Netherlands from Vancouver, Johan van Drecht, and his wife, Yu Lan. Also with them are Hank Traa, president of the Vancouver Island Netherlands Association and his wife, Mia, and board members of the association and their spouses: Theo and Kathy Kersten, Henk and Hennie Maas, Henk and Agnes Zethof, Fred Muiser, Bart Kluytmans, Marcel and Jo Philipse, and Leo VanDyk.
In a few minutes from now, at noon, there will be a special recital of Dutch songs at the Netherlands Centennial Carillon, performed by the former provincial carillonneur, Herman Bergink. The carillon, just a few steps from the House at the corner of Government and Belleville streets, was a gift to the province by the Dutch community in British Columbia on the occasion of the centennial in 1967. One of the largest bells, weighing 640 kilograms, is dedicated to the Canadian soldiers who gave their lives for the liberation of the Netherlands. Many of us walk by it every day and don't fully appreciate its significance.
The recital will be followed at 12:15 p.m. by a wreath-laying ceremony at the cenotaph, and I invite all MLAs to join us if they can.
Vandaag is een speciale dag. Het is de herdenking van de bevryding van Nederland in 1945. Jaar op jaar hebben de Nederlanders duizenden en nogmaals duizenden tulpenbollen naar Canada gezonden als erkentelijkheit voor de rol die Canada daarin gespeeld heeft. Voor alle Nederlanders in Canada dank ik de Canadese soldaten die hun leven hebben gegeven, zodat Nederland vrij was.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to join the hon. member for Alberni in his welcome on behalf of all the members of the House. It's a great pleasure to hear him speak in the language of his roots on this occasion. It's not often we have the opportunity to witness such an event, so this is very worthwhile.
Hon. member, I can only repeat that we too are very sensitive about the terms and the investments of those people in those lands, and there's no question about that. It's absolutely, fundamentally significant as an issue. When our chief negotiators go to the table with regard to those lands, we have said very clearly that no land issue such as those where there are licences will be discussed at the table without first consulting with those who have an interest, either through a licence or a lease. The consultation process works both ways here, and we will not enter into discussions at the table until those consultations have taken place in those rare instances where there could possibly be that kind of impact. It's our position that in negotiating treaties, we seek that real property interests would remain intact. With regard to licences, permits and that sort of thing, it's our position that we go into those negotiations to protect those interests.
Sometimes, in the context of the negotiations, there could be circumstances where there could be an impact on one of those. If that is the case, first of all it must be discussed with the party prior to it being discussed at the table. Secondly, if it got to the point where, through that process, there was to be an impact on that, there would be fair compensation. I think that we've made our principles very clear, and that is the position we take to treaty negotiations.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
L. Fox: I'm not sure that will be all that much comfort to a lot of folks, because there are a whole host of issues around values and so on which I intend to take up with the Minister
[ Page 14035 ]
of Lands. But, indeed, if we could relax, or at least solidify an understandable process of consultation, so that residents and owners would understand what they must do to comply and purchase their particular lease, whether it's their ag lease.... I should point out that, according to the individuals in that regional office, there are approximately ten present ag leases that are being held up in my constituency for exactly the same reason. That's the input I'm getting from people who have applied. I must point out the importance of the minister putting his pen to paper and coming up with what he perceives to be a broad guideline on what due diligence is in different categories and in different situations. If the minister would do that, it would provide me and my constituents with a whole lot more comfort.
Hon. J. Cashore: I have in my hand the Crown lands activities policy, and I'm going to send it over to the hon. member. He says he has it. We might want to discuss guidelines in the context of policies that are written and available, and to reference specific points in there. The hon. member says he has it, so I won't send it over, but when he's asking for the broad guidelines, those guidelines are in the policy and therefore quite readily available to him.
The hon. member has referred to "a host of issues," and he again referred to officials in the Ministry of Agriculture who have expressed....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: Ministry of Lands. Okay, I misunderstood. I thought the hon. member was saying agricultural leases, but it was through the Ministry of Lands. Thank you.
I would appreciate it if the hon. member would send me a note and give me a few more specifics as to the individuals who have expressed these concerns, so that we can seek to sort this out and identify the actual specifics of it.
[11:45]
L. Fox: I understand that the House wants to adjourn shortly, but I have just one point. I want to make it very clear here. There aren't people in the Ministry of Lands office who are doing anything untoward; they're merely reciting the policy that the minister just suggested he would send over to me. I'm sure the minister would also agree that the policy is a broad overview policy and not a definitive policy. It has no time frames contained within it, and that's the major issue here. I just want to make sure that was clear.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to read into the record for the hon. member the general operational guidelines of the Crown land activities policy I referred to, on page 8, under the heading "Time Lines":
"Ministries should specify time frames that are consistent with statutory requirements and with the time lines that are generally followed for each Crown land activity. The ministry should specify the exceptions, for example, under what circumstances any time lines would be extended for a reasonable length of time if progress is being achieved."
The general principle is there, and as I've said before, the specificity of a time line would have to relate to the actual circumstance, because this is such a vast and wonderful province that the array of situations is so great.
I notice that the hon. member is wanting to get up and respond to what I have just said, and I ask him to come back when we resume our debate, because we will hear....
Interjection.
Hon. J. Cashore: All right, as long as it doesn't go on for more than ten seconds.
L. Fox: I want to thank the minister for being so accommodating, and I'll make it short. I just want to suggest that it's my understanding that the minister is now taking over the responsibilities for Environment, Lands and Parks as well. We couldn't get the policy through the last minister; perhaps we could get this minister to commit to bringing forth a time frame under that policy.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would just say that before the hon. member got to the last sentence of what he said, his ten seconds were up.
No, I take the point. I think it behooves us, as we bring into place this new relationship, which is pursuant to court decisions, to do that and to get all of these processes very clearly defined.
With that, I move the committee now 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.
Hon. J. Cashore: I wish all members of the House a very fine weekend enjoying the splendours of British Columbia. I hope that members aren't dealing with too many duties in their constituencies so that they can have a well-deserved break. With that I move the House do now adjourn.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]