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 11, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 23
[ Page 14191 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
R. Chisholm: Today in the House we have a Mr. Lemna from Chilliwack Secondary School and 100 students plus adults to observe the parliament in action. Would you make them welcome, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: Today it's a great pleasure for me to introduce some special guests from Mexico. We have the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Ignacio Pichardo Pagaza. With him is the chairman of the Mexican Energy Regulatory Commission, Mr. Hector Olea, and also the newly appointed consul general for Mexico in Vancouver, Mr. Gabriel Rosales Vega. With them are some other senior officials, and they have been accompanied in a cross-Canada trip by Senator Jack Austin. Please make them all welcome.
D. Jarvis: Sitting in the gallery is a constituent of mine, Miss Terri Kennedy, who is with Gore Mutual Insurance Co., the first company that I ever worked for in the insurance industry. Miss Kennedy is here in Victoria attending the convention of the Insurance Broker's Association of B.C. Would the House give her a warm welcome, please.
G. Brewin: Today joining us in the House are some very special visitors from Japan: Mr. Masaki Abe and Mr. Shigeo Hatanaka are from IBC Television in Morioka, Japan. This is the tenth anniversary of the sister-city link between Victoria and Morioka. Next week over 400 Moriokans will be taking part in the Victoria Day celebrations here in Victoria. The gentlemen from IBC are here to organize a live program to be telecast between Victoria's CHEK 6 TV and IBC in Morioka. One of the stars of that program is going to be, of course, the mayor of Morioka -- and others, including our own carver, Tony Hunt, who will be officiating at the raising of a totem pole as our gift from Victoria to Morioka. It will be seen live on television in both countries, and that is apparently a first for Canadian broadcasting. Would the House please make them welcome.
F. Jackson: Visiting in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Linda Walton. I met Linda wandering in the halls this morning admiring the beauty of this place, and I suggested that she should take in question period to see the other side of the story. I should also mention, hon. Speaker, that there may well be an ulterior motive for what I have done today, because Linda's husband, Bill, has got some ideas of replacing me in this chamber. Would the House please make Linda and her friend, Wilma Beddington, welcome.
V. Anderson: I'd like the House to welcome a constituent who works with the Insurance Bureau of Canada: Keith Frew from the Vancouver-Langara riding.
C. Evans: Joining us from India today is Dr. Regina Papa, who has a doctorate in English and a bachelor's degree in chemistry and physics. Dr. Papa is the department head of the first university women's studies program in India, and is here in Canada examining our women-in-trades-and-technology programs. Bringing her to the Legislature today is my constituent, Marcia Braundy, a member of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board and chair of their equity committee, and a carpenter.
Also joining us today is an old friend of mine and of people of all parties in this building for many decades, a gentleman named Bill Chernoff, formerly of Nakusp, presently of Vancouver. Bill is a bit of a visionary, an entrepreneur in the forest industry, an educator of Forests ministers of all parties for at least 20 years and a tiny bit of a stubborn fellow.
Please make them all welcome.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to advise the House that my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale is celebrating his fifty-sixth birthday today. I would ask the House to mark that occasion. I can say that after four years in this assembly, he's getting younger every day.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want members today to welcome some visitors from the North Island, except in this case this is the North Island of New Zealand: my wife's sister, Christine Bell-Booth, with her children, Anna and Emily. I'd like all members to make them welcome.
TOBACCO SALES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Sales Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
This bill introduces an administrative plan by which a tobacco vendor's licence may be suspended for repeated infractions of the Tobacco Sales Act. This is a further step in the government's strategy to reduce the consumption of tobacco among young people. Last June, our government brought in legislation which imposed several prohibitions on retailers, including the sale of tobacco to persons under 19 years of age. This was followed by an educational campaign and by increasing levels of enforcement.
The bill introduced today provides for tough enforcement measures to be taken against vendors who repeatedly violate the legislation. A vendor's licence to sell tobacco may be suspended for a period of between three and 12 months. Additional amendments are made to facilitate prosecution and enforcement of existing legislation, and I'll describe the details of those at second reading of the bill.
In tabling this legislation today, I want to acknowledge the considerable assistance provided by the Minister of Finance in bringing this bill forward.
Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.
[ Page 14192 ]
This government has examined every aspect of the income assistance system to find ways to make it more effective, efficient and fair. We've identified a need for several amendments to the GAIN Act. Most of the amendments in this bill are of a technical nature and clarify the substance and intent of the existing act.
[2:15]
But the bill does introduce one substantive change that affects the income assistance appeal system. Under the GAIN Act, anyone who disagrees with ministry decisions to cut, stop or deny welfare benefits can request a review conducted within the ministry. If that's unsatisfactory, clients may appeal to a three-member tribunal comprising community members selected for this purpose.
A comprehensive review, including consultations with ministry staff, community members and the office of the ombudsman has revealed serious concerns about fairness in the system. Selection of tribunal members needs to more fully represent the overall community; tribunal decisions vary widely from case to case; some decisions are made in error of law; and tribunal decisions can only be appealed or overturned in court -- generally a long and costly process.
If the public is to have confidence in the integrity of the income assistance system, decisions made by tribunals must truly reflect the substance of the governing legislation and reflect the standards and values of the broad community in which we live. Therefore this bill will enhance the recruitment, training and selection methods of those who sit on tribunals, and establish a provincial appeal board with expertise about the GAIN Act to ensure that decisions across the province are consistent and fair to both clients and taxpayers.
Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
NISGA'A TREATY NEGOTIATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FISHERY
A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. We have learned that the NDP government is now making another offer to the Nisga'a on their land claim. As the minister knows, British Columbians are very concerned about the secrecy surrounding these land claim negotiations. Will the minister table this offer in the House today, so that all British Columbians have the opportunity to see its details?
Hon. J. Cashore: The document being tabled today is the document that was referenced in the information that came out last week, so it's not separate from that. It was indicated in that information that we would be tabling a document. With regard to making it public, in the context of the confidentiality clause that was signed by the previous minister, the inister of Native Affairs, I have instructed the chief negotiator to seek the support of the other two negotiating partners to enable us to release that position so that it may see the light of day.
A. Warnke: My supplemental is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. As it stands now under the present system, aboriginals have the opportunity of purchasing licences to fish and acquire boats through buyout programs. Since we've learned that the minister is operating a separate commercial native fishery as part of the Nisga'a settlement, and since we learned this week that this government is committed to only one gambling policy for all British Columbians, will the minister commit to ensuring that there remains only one commercial fishing policy for all British Columbians?
Hon. J. Cashore: I've consistently made it very clear that the only way the provincial government would ever sign a treaty with regard to any position put forward by the federal government on fish would be where there was an absolute assurance that there would be written into the treaty the process and the details with regard to monitoring and enforcement that the federal government would have to ensure so that our fundamental position is upheld, and that is the conservation of the stock.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS MINISTRY POLICY ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS MEETINGS
W. Hurd: I, too, have a question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Through freedom of information, the opposition has obtained an internal audit that shows irregularities in the way officials in the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs bill their expenses for business meetings. The manual calls for business expenses to be approved prior to the meetings, but of 104 billing claims in the audit sample, 86 were given approval after the function occurred, and 38 were never given proper approval at all. Can the minister explain how these frequent violations of policy have occurred within his ministry?
Hon. J. Cashore: This is the first time that I have heard this. I will examine this in the context of the statement the hon. member has made, and I will take the question on notice.
The Speaker: The member has a new question?
W. Hurd: The internal audit also shows that meetings with aboriginal groups are perceived to be class 3 meetings. In the operating policy manual, examples of class 3 meetings are: "Official visits by royalty, heads of state, heads of government and foreign ministers." Can the minister explain why meetings with aboriginal groups are regarded by the government in British Columbia as meetings with sovereign states?
Hon. J. Cashore: I said I would take the question on notice.
CROWN DECISION NOT TO PROSECUTE ALLEGED RAPIST
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Attorney General. British Columbians don't want creeps like John Oughton, the paper-bag rapist, on the streets, and the people in my community are mad as hell that the Crown is refusing to prosecute a known individual who allegedly raped a 14-year-old girl who became pregnant as a result. The day before the victim was to gain her day in court, Crown prosecutors decided that they would not proceed, because the courts had just
[ Page 14193 ]
dismissed a similar case. What recourse does this victim have against her alleged assailant if the Crown won't even prosecute her alleged rapist?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm afraid I'll have to take that question on notice.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.
COST OF B.C. HYDRO RESTRUCTURING
G. Farrell-Collins: According to documents obtained from B.C. Hydro, Hydro spent $2 million to relocate 40 employees during their recent restructuring. That's $50,000 per employee. Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro explain why it cost $2 million to shuffle people around the province for B.C. Hydro?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm familiar with the freedom-of-information request that the member has filed. I have reviewed the information, and I'm quite pleased that he's raising this in the House. We've eliminated 800 positions at B.C. Hydro -- about 12 percent of the employees at B.C. Hydro. We're making that corporation more efficient. We want to provide efficient energy to British Columbians, we want to keep hydroelectric rates among the lowest in the world, and we want to make sure that this healthy Crown corporation is contributing to economic development throughout the regions of British Columbia.
The restructuring.... If we are to make the downsizing required to make B.C. Hydro more competitive in an increasingly deregulated and energy-competitive world, we have to treat our employees fairly. We have to make sure that the restructuring is done in keeping with treating those workers in a way that is consistent with government policy. Yes, it does cost about $23 million to accomplish the restructuring; and we save $23 million a year in perpetuity from these efficiency gains.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure that all those employees will have actually had moving expenses, unlike Connie Munro, who didn't and received the money anyway.
A person only has to read the documents obtained from B.C. Hydro to know how out of touch with reality they really are, despite what the minister says. Under the heading "Furniture Moves," B.C. Hydro estimates that it has cost another $2 million to relocate their office furniture. Last year B.C. Hydro spent $1 million to move furniture from downtown to the Edmonds site, and now they're spending another $2 million to shuffle desks. How can that minister, despite all the rhetoric, justify $2 million to move office furniture from one office to the other?
Hon. G. Clark: This is not rhetoric. We have eliminated 800 FTEs; some 600 individuals were terminated. We have moved to make this corporation much more efficient than in the past and to prepare for the future. It costs money to restructure a large corporation and put it on a competitive footing, and we make no apologies for some short-term expenses which lead to a more efficient corporation in the long run for the people of British Columbia.
NISGA'A TREATY NEGOTIATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FISHERY
L. Fox: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The province has indicated that it is prepared to grant the Nisga'a a formal share of the commercial salmon fishery. Given that the courts have never recognized an aboriginal right to commercial fishing, how can the minister responsible for fisheries support this position? Why is this government bound and determined to carve up a commercial fishery based on race, and to grant a special status to one class of British Columbians at the expense of equal treatment for all?
Hon. J. Cashore: The settlement of treaties has more to do with history and the legal framework than it has to do with race. I think we need to recognize the context in which this discussion is taking place. We're seeking to achieve certainty; new, modern treaties enable us to deal with issues which are now very confusing, in many instances because of the anomalies of the federal Indian Act.
With regard to fish, the fundamental and basic point with regard to the provincial government is that conservation is paramount. We will not agree to anything with regard to any federal position unless we have a guarantee in the treaty that there will be protection of the stocks through monitoring and enforcement, and we want that spelled out by the federal government.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Fox: The province's negotiating mandate states: "British Columbia will support a Nisga'a commercial entitlement outside the treaty...." It also states: "British Columbia will not support a treaty right to surplus salmon." Is it the province's position that there's no aboriginal right to a commercial fishery? If so, is the province now prepared to say that it will not negotiate or ratify any treaty that includes a legal right to an aboriginal commercial fishery?
Hon. J. Cashore: In the document the hon. member read, he quoted a commercial right outside the treaty. With regard to any commercial allocations, they would be outside the treaty, and therefore would be subject to the conservation limitations that would be placed on that by the Minister of Fisheries in consultation with all the fisher groups in the province. I don't want to stand here and defend a federal position, but that is how they have explained their position with regard to what they want to take to the table.
When it comes to the issue of food fish, what we're talking about here is basically the removal of a right -- the right for food fish for sustenance -- and the removal of that right, as an aboriginal right, to come into what would be a treaty agreement. But if that is to happen -- and I say, if that is to happen -- there has to be the kind of quid quo pro that makes that a benefit to the province as well as to the Nisga'a.
USE OF NON-B.C. CONSULTANT IN B.C. HYDRO RESTRUCTURING
M. de Jong: The Minister of Employment and Investment is fond of proclaiming his commitment to providing jobs for British Columbians. Therefore I question.... My question
[ Page 14194 ]
to him is to explain why, during the recent reorganization of B.C. Hydro, B.C. Hydro used an American consulting firm, Mercer Management Consulting Inc. Maybe he can indicate whether that was a referral from Karl Struble.
Hon. G. Clark: Mercer Consulting is the recognized international expert on restructuring of hydroelectric and energy utilities. For the edification of members of the opposition, all utilities in North America are going through significant restructuring as the rules of the game change. All utilities are struggling to come to grips with a competitive environment which heretofore did not exist in regulated monopolies. Mercer is recognized internationally as an expert in giving advice on how to position a corporation to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in that new marketplace and to minimize the costs associated with that. Mercer consultants were hired to assist and to give advice. They did not write the full report; they gave some preliminary information, which Hydro management then took and worked on internally to provide the restructuring.
[2:30]
I might advise members, if they don't know, that I believe they have retained Mercer again, to review the restructuring to ensure that it meets the proper efficiency standards; that we make sure that we continue to have the most efficient utility in North America.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: Well, I hope the minister is right as far as this group having some expertise is concerned, because the invoices suggest that they've received a total of $194,000 that was spent on the design and launch of the first two phases of the restructuring of B.C. Hydro. The first phase was run out of Toronto, and the two most recent bills for $55,000 were payable to Boston in U.S. funds. My question to the minister quite simply is this: where did his commitment to hiring local firms go when B.C. Hydro decided it was time to restructure?
Hon. G. Clark: There are only ten utilities in Canada that I know of -- ten or maybe 12 utilities in Canada -- in the hydroelectric field, and we are leading the country in terms of becoming more efficient and restructuring. The expertise in terms of giving advice on that question does not exist in the form that we required to ensure that we were meeting the standards that our competitors shortly will be meeting.
I find it interesting that this member talks about jobs in British Columbia because B.C. Hydro is pursuing the construction of Stave Lake, of the fifth unit at Revelstoke, of the Seven Mile unit at Revelstoke -- all with British Columbia labour, all with local hire, all with union hire. Those members oppose the local-hire provisions in every single way, whether it's the Island Highway or B.C. Hydro. I want to advise the members that very shortly we will be announcing a significant new investment in British Columbia of private companies building turbines in British Columbia, by using the leverage of our Crown corporation to build jobs in British Columbia instead of selling to their friends like the Liberal Party wants to do.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have the honour to present the Report of the 1995 Judicial Compensation Committee of British Columbia. Under subsection 7.1(8) of the Provincial Court Act, I am required to inform the Legislature of the effect of tabling the report in the House.
As hon. members will recall, last session the House passed an amendment to the Provincial Court Act which established a new process for determining the remuneration for Provincial Court judges. Under the act, a committee is established every three years to make recommendations to the Legislature on compensation for the provincial judiciary. One of the amendments states that the Provincial Court judiciary are entitled to receive the remuneration, allowances and benefits proposed by the committee in its recommendations, unless the recommendations are rejected by the Legislature under subsection 7.1(9). The Legislature has 21 sitting days after the report and recommendations are tabled in the House -- which means, of course, 21 sitting days after today -- to pass a resolution to reject one or more of the recommendations made in the report on the grounds that the recommendations are unfair or unreasonable. If the House does pass a resolution of rejection, the resolution must also fix the remuneration, allowances or benefits that are to be substituted for the remuneration, allowances or benefits proposed by the rejected recommendations. If, at the end of 21 sitting days, the Legislature has not passed a resolution, then the recommendations in this report take effect retroactively to January 1, 1995.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply: in Committee A, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates; in Committee B, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).
A. Warnke: Actually, the last time I addressed a series of questions was on the Nisga'a agreements, and what I want to do is follow up on them. I believe other members want to continue on, because I think there is still enough out there that really needs extra clarification. The clarification is so essential, because a number of groups have been very explicit and clear that if, for example, there is some sort of an agreement that imposes upon them in the fishing industry, it will have an adverse effect on the industry as a whole.
As a matter of fact.... I'm sure the minister is quite well aware of this, and obviously I will be putting these questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well. Where it pertains to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I am wondering whether the minister.... I'm sure he's aware of some of the comments made by, say, the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition and many people involved in the fishing
[ Page 14195 ]
industry as well. They're concerned about the pending treaty that might take place, but I suppose what I'm searching for now is the rationale for that kind of agreement.
Indeed, perhaps the best way to lead off is to actually quote from the B.C. Fisheries Survival Coalition and other groups that have come together which represent the industry, and point out that the proposals advanced to the Nisga'a would provide special kinds of privileges in the allocation of salmon, especially where there is a marine-sensitive area. The minister has made it very clear that conservation and ecological concerns are uppermost and primary. But even if that could be established, the problem is that the fishing industry wants access to the fish and the Nisga'a want access to the fish. I guess where there's a lot of discussion or controversy is that there are a lot of British Columbians who understand from the courts, especially from the Sparrow decision, that the right to have fish allocated for food, social and ceremonial use is proper. A lot of British Columbians have no problem with that; they don't have any problem in terms of using fish for sustenance, for people to live from. But it gets kind of controversial when we get into the area of selling the fish, especially in the commercial area.
What I want to explore, and where it pertains to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, is that in coming to terms with this agreement -- there is the Nisga'a agreement and then there are going to be other kinds of agreements -- there is this feeling that whatever is finally decided in the Nisga'a case will also carry on in some of the other cases. We're really wondering why there seems to be almost a concession at the outset that says that beyond fish allocated for food, social and ceremonial use, perhaps it should be enshrined in the resolutions at the end to sell fish for commercial purposes. Perhaps I'm off track, and maybe I've just heard the wrong things or read the wrong things in the papers; as we have all said in this House from time to time, you can't believe everything you read in the papers. But I would like to explore this with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and seek some clarification on this.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the fish component of the Nisga'a treaty, I reiterate that fish is primarily a federal issue, except where the province's conservation responsibility for inland stocks comes into play. It is true that there are three parties at the table. We have made it very, very clear -- again and again and again -- that if we are to get a deal on fish that is an appropriate deal when you look at the range right across the spectrum of issues that are being negotiated, if we are to give any support to the federal position, then that support will require a treaty commitment to monitoring and enforcement. I think it's very important that hon. members realize the significance of that, because I am not aware of any treaty precedent for such a condition.
We are aware, however, that the people of British Columbia are very seriously concerned about the record of the federal government on protecting fish stocks. Therefore here is one way in which a treaty can be of benefit to all British Columbians: having a legal requirement written into the treaty that would ensure that the federal government has to monitor and enforce in a way that would be specified within the treaty. I believe that it is very significant, and I think that that in itself should be seen as one of the possible benefits of a treaty.
With regard to the questions the hon. member was raising, I just want to outline some of the points that were made in the document that came into the light of day last week. Any support for any position that has to do with fish would require that effective measures for monitoring and enforcement are provided in the treaty, as I said; that the sale of fish is subject to the laws of general application -- that would be whether it was any commercial fish inside or outside of the treaty, and there are possibilities through negotiation of some considerations outside of the treaty, which would therefore not become a treaty right -- and that all harvest entitlements are provided on a communal basis.
British Columbia will not support a treaty right to surplus salmon, and government and industry recognize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia and feel strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring such as would come out of the recommendations of the John Fraser report.
I would also point out that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I went to Ottawa and met with ministers Irwin and Tobin at the beginning of last week. We informed them in very clear terms of this government's requirement with regard to monitoring and enforcement.
With regard to the question of the sale of any fish that might result, it is our position that where it comes to fish for food and sustenance, if that were to be considered as a treaty right -- if that were to be the case -- there would be a concomitant removal of it as an aboriginal right. That would be one of the effects of the treaty. The treaty would have the effect of removing the first nation from the Indian Act. That is our goal, and that is our intent when it comes to treaty settlements.
It is very clear that conservation is what this province is taking to the table, and that fish issues pertaining to the federal government are what they're taking to the table, and we've made it very clear where we stand on that.
[2:45]
L. Boone: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Boone: On behalf of the Speaker, I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming Ms. M. Smith, who is a teacher from Riverview Elementary in Snohomish County, Washington. She and 86 of her students and some other chaperones are here to learn about comparative government and some local history. I hope they are learning about comparisons, and that the comparisons between what they see here and what they see in their own communities are not too bad. I hope we don't fare too badly. Would the House please join me in welcoming this group of people to our Legislature.
A. Warnke: I want to follow up on that particular question. There was a concern expressed by the same group I referred to that the creation of a special fishery does not meet the test of equity. Perhaps it's just something here -- a principle -- that obviously needs to be filled out, and I'm wondering if the minister has a response to that.
[ Page 14196 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: I do respect the point the hon. member is making with regard to the test of equity in all matters pertaining to citizens of British Columbia. I recognize, however, that in the context of treaty negotiations, we're talking about resolving issues that go back 150 years. The resolution of these issues therefore does not violate tests of equity in any way, but it does mean, based on historic circumstances where there are undefined rights and where the courts are saying we need to define those rights through negotiation, that in the context of a treaty the purpose is to get finality to an agreement with regard to several issues that are now very confusing. It's not clear because of the anomalies of the federal Indian Act, etc. I do not think that an agreement violates an issue of equity. I know what the hon. member is getting at, and that is that there are a lot of British Columbians who want all the laws to be the same for everybody. The laws of general application will apply, but by definition treaties do mean that there would be those agreements between the province and the first nation that would be within the treaty, and that would be something that is freely and openly negotiated.
A. Warnke: I guess it would also be fair to say that.... Maybe I'm prejudging the case a little bit. Aboriginals themselves have time and time again suggested that to move in a direction of a resolution that adheres strictly to the principle of equality or equity actually hides the policy of assimilation and integrationism that is rejected by a number of aboriginal groups. So there is definitely a problem there. This point has been made before, and I will not elaborate on it.
I also wanted to clean up, I suppose, one little matter that jumps out in terms of the Nisga'a case. In the document that the minister has referred to and is well acquainted with and has quoted from -- it was released or leaked or whatever by the federal Reform Party last week -- there is stated the expressed determination of the provincial government to settle the Nisga'a land claim issue by June 30. I must admit that I'm still wanting in terms of what happens after June 30.
The reason I suggest this is that in terms of any negotiations that I'm familiar with, once you've established some sort of deadline -- especially if the deadline is perceived as a way of forcing the other side to come to terms with or accept or reject a proposal -- if the deadline is passed there will be certain kinds of actions taken. Quite often what is generally perceived as a skilful tactic in negotiations.... Once you've established some sort of deadline, you set out the terms of what will happen if the deadline is passed. One states very explicitly the course of action or the implications that are going to follow after a particular deadline. If it's established and clearly laid out, then there are really no surprises. That's number one.
There's another aspect to this as well: sometimes if there's a deadline established without any explicit mention of what the implications are or the course of action that will follow, then the person initiating the deadline can often be accused of bluffing. That's number two.
Third, in this particular case I've noted that a number of people have actually suggested that this may be a tactic by putting the Nisga'a in the situation of having to reject the proposal. It has raised the view expressed by many people that perhaps the government had not intended to negotiate a settlement. Whether that's a fair comment or a wrong comment, all of this leads up to an impression that perhaps the government is not negotiating in good faith. So there is that view out there, and I suppose it's an accusation as well.
I'm sure the minister has come across newspaper reports that there's a political agenda attached to this as well, that by putting on a deadline, somehow it's due to some sort of political consideration. I must admit I don't quite see the obvious connection. Nonetheless, I'm wondering, after having said that, whether the minister would care to comment on, first, the course of action that the government intends to take after June 30, if the deadline passes; and second, whether there is going to be a clear statement of the implications and course of action that the provincial government will take if the deadline is passed.
Hon. J. Cashore: I do appreciate the question, because I think it puts out the framework for a response that I want to give. I have answered this question before, but I think this is an opportunity for me to answer it again and put it in a sequence.
The fact is that we have put out a date, which is the date that we have stated when we wish to achieve an AIP -- an agreement in principle. We have indicated, as was revealed in the leaked documents, that we planned to table our comprehensive position imminently -- and I think "imminently" is a very correct word in the present circumstances. So we are doing that, as we said we would and as has been indicated in those documents. That comprehensive position we are putting out there, to a very great extent -- but not entirely -- is foreshadowed in the documents that were released last week.
The purpose of this is to recognize the historic context in which we are operating, and that is that the Nisga'a have the longest-standing claim in the history of Canada. Indeed, with the federal government they have been negotiating for 20 years; British Columbia has been negotiating as a third party in that process for four years. After 20 years, the federal government still has not tabled a final position in a number of areas, including fish, taxation and financial compensation.
I would expect that every member of this House would support the fact that this government wishes to negotiate removal of the section 87 tax exemption. When I say that, I always hasten to add that aboriginal people do pay a lot of taxes. But there is that exemption. We think that one of the results of a modern treaty should be to put an end to that and to recognize that when people become fully interdependent and functioning effectively within an economy, part of self-determination and self-respect is that they would pay their fair share of taxes for services.
We don't believe that it's in anybody's interest to allow these negotiations to drag out without any context of a finishing time. There have been times when people have talked about dates, but they don't seem to have had any real meaning. We recognize that there is a way to go, but we believe that by putting out a date it says to the other parties: "We want to know if you're serious about getting a treaty." I think there have been some indications recently that the federal government does not seem to be signalling its intention to follow through on a federal-provincial cost-sharing memorandum of understanding, which they have agreed to. I don't know if that's a factor, but we need to know. We need to know if that's a factor. Also, hon. members will recall that about six months ago the Nisga'a were lobbying, they were talking to media, and the message was coming through that somehow it was the provincial government that wasn't putting a position on the table, which was not correct. But we did take in good faith what they were saying. Then the Premier ordered that there
[ Page 14197 ]
be a comprehensive review of all the negotiating and all the mandates that have been discussed -- and there are many. We then followed through on what we said we would do after we had talked to them at that time, and we have done that; we have put that out there.
I have also said in the House today that we seek to be able to make our mandate statement public. In order to do that we are under the terms of conditions of a framework agreement, and we wish to have the support of the other negotiating parties to enable us to make that public, because we believe the people of British Columbia have a right to know where this is going.
[3:00]
Having said all that, the hon. member has rightly asked the question: what happens after that date if there's no agreement? That's a perfectly valid question. Parties seriously put positions on the table in negotiations, and they expect other parties, if they are serious, to come back to the table with their serious positions. A serious position coming back to the table would be a position that also puts out where they stand with regard to timing. We need the focus, and the purpose of what we are doing is to achieve that focus. If they were to come back with a position on timing that indicated to us that they were serious, that they have brought information to the table that said, "In order to have achievable goals, we need this kind of time," and if we were able to see that this was very much in good faith, then we would have something to negotiate with regard to time.
And yes, our position on time would therefore be subject to negotiation, because what we have done would have served the purpose of receiving a good-faith response. Then we would know we had a basis for seeking to continue. We need to know if we have a basis for seeking to continue, because if we don't -- if the federal government is satisfied to just let this go on and on, perhaps because their negotiating budget is something that they feel more comfortable with than their budget for settlements -- then we just can't see that being open-ended and going on without any focus.
Our position is that if they come to the table and say, "Yes, we think there's a basis for a conclusion here; we think the time is unrealistic, and this is the time we would suggest," and if we ascertained that this is a good-faith response, then we have a basis for getting down to some serious talking about how we can set a realistic time line and how we can seek to achieve that in the interests of all British Columbians, including the Nisga'a. If we were to find in our considered judgment that they simply were not intent on getting serious about setting a time line and putting realistic positions on the table, then I have to tell hon. members in all seriousness that we have an enormous task with regard to seeking to negotiate modern treaties. And we would have to consider the deployment of the resources that are currently involved in that negotiation so that we could have the greatest value for the work that the members of that negotiating team are putting forward.
So we are seeking to get focus and are seeking to come up with a realistic date. We believe we've put a realistic date out there. If they don't think that it is, for goodness' sake tell us. Let's talk about it and let's find out if we are all moving in good faith towards what is going to be a lasting and appropriate settlement.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's answers. Very frequently the minister referred to whether they are serious, and I guess the magic word is "they." I'm not exactly sure whether it's the federal government or the Nisga'a he's referring to, or both. Perhaps just a quick clarification would be appreciated there.
I take it, then, from what the minister is saying, that there is a June 30 deadline. Then, to see if there is any sort of response.... Based on the response, that June 30 deadline is renegotiable; perhaps for the purpose of establishing some sort of time frame, June 30 could be delayed to another time whereby people come together. Am I correct in that?
Hon. J. Cashore: We have put a position on the table. We have said that we think it's achievable by a certain date. If our other parties at the table come back with a position that indicates that there's a basis for negotiation, and that negotiation can also consider the setting of the time.... Just to be hypothetical, if the other parties were to come back and say, "We don't think we can do it by the date that you have cited, but we think we can do it by this other date for these reasons," then we would have to look at that very seriously. That's what I mean by us being convinced that they are serious. But if the parties came back and said: "No, we have no idea when we can get this thing accomplished...."
Also, I have to add to that that I think it behooves the federal government to put a comprehensive position out there, such as we are doing. I think, again, that this is one of the messages we heard very clearly from the public. Perhaps the federal government isn't quite as close to hearing what the public is saying as we are, but they should be. The public wants to know what's out there. We believe that we should make our position available to the public; we believe that the federal government should do that also.
A. Warnke: I deduct from the answer that the minister seems to be pointing the finger in the direction of the federal government for not putting out its comprehensive position. It seems to me that the minister is under the impression that the federal government is primarily responsible for not pursuing the matter seriously. If that's the case, perhaps the minister could confirm or clarify that. But I'm wondering, then, what appears to be the basis of the problem here. Is it a fact that the two governments are just coming at this from separate viewpoints or perspectives, and that they're not in contact with one another? Just what seems to be the problem here?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't want to be misunderstood on the issue of seriousness. I think that the respect that's necessary in order to achieve modern settlements means that we have to have an awareness of the seriousness of all the parties. A lot of really valuable work has been done in a context of seriousness; there's no question about that. So I don't wish the use of my word "serious" to imply that the other parties have not negotiated in good faith; they have.
I'm talking now, however, about being serious about "getting to yes," about getting to a conclusion, about recognizing that there has been adequate time to do the research -- to do the background -- and it's now time to put the very clear, comprehensive positions out there. That's what we are asking our other negotiators at the table, in all seriousness, to do. After all, we have been asked to do it, and we've done it; and we're asking them to do it also.
[ Page 14198 ]
D. Symons: I ask leave to make an introduction, please.
Leave granted.
D. Symons: Seated in the gallery -- I believe they have just arrived -- are 38 grade 11 and 12 English-as-a-second-language students from Richmond Senior Secondary School in my riding of Richmond Centre. I believe they are above us here. They've come to watch how democracy works in British Columbia and to see how we do legislation. They are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Schuck and Mr. Schuck. Would the House please join me in making them feel welcome.
A. Warnke: I just want to put forward another question on this in terms of trying to reach some sort of settlement -- that is, the status of the acreage to be negotiated. There are all kinds of figures out there, ranging from a hundred and.... I believe the Treaty 8 is about 160 acres per person or something like that.
An Hon. Member: One hundred and twenty eight.
A. Warnke: One hundred and twenty eight, all right. Thank you, distinguished colleague. One hundred and sixty.... I've heard 500 -- there's quite a wide variety of acreage involved here. I'm wondering, since we're on the subject of the Nisga'a, whether in fact the minister could present to us the status of the acreage question -- just exactly what we're dealing with, how far apart we are, and so on.
Hon. J. Cashore: When we talk about land area in consideration in a treaty, there's quite a difference between a treaty adhesion such as McLeod Lake, where the role of the provincial government is to be present at what is really a federal-first nations negotiation based on Treaty 8, the post-Confederation treaty, and to ensure that the interests of the province are represented within that negotiation.... With regard to the treaties that come under the Treaty Commission, or indeed the Nisga'a treaty, we're talking about treaties that end up with a wide array of issues that probably.... I think there would probably be about 19 or 20 of the issues that would be the titles of specific mandates in the overall context of negotiating a treaty. So you have to look at the amount of land in the modern treaty-making process, the tripartite process, as part of a total package. Therefore any formula based on per capita that may be projected, even on the provincewide treaty-making process or on the basis of what's going on in an adhesion treaty, is really apples and oranges. In an adhesion treaty, for instance, we are not into a tripartite negotiation that's dealing with a range of perhaps 20 topics.
C. Serwa: We'll just go back a few steps -- I couldn't get in earlier -- to several questions with respect to fish. It's not clear in my mind under what mandate of authority the provincial government is taking a position of negotiating with respect to the fish, whether they be inland stocks or saltwater stocks. Perhaps the minister could enlighten me on that.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, the mandate or authority of any activity with regard to our negotiating within the context of the Nisga'a treaty would be in the agreements that have been achieved between the previous provincial government, the federal government and the Nisga'a with regard to sitting down to negotiate. It's within that context that the guidelines are laid out and that the authority to do so exists. So our government, when we came into government, decided to continue the role that this hon. member's previous government had embarked on with regard to negotiating that treaty. Now, with regard to his question of fish, whether they be inland fish or saltwater fish, the fact is that when a treaty which is tripartite is concluded, there are three entities that sign that treaty. Therefore those entities have an interest in virtually every topic that comes up for discussion.
C. Serwa: It's my understanding that under the British North America Act the federal government retains, I guess, the monopoly right with respect to fish, whether it be saltwater fish like salmon that migrate into the fresh water or freshwater fish. That is sort of being sublet as a responsibility of the province. The province, in the final analysis, is subject to the will of the federal government. My question is that I don't understand, even though it's a tripartite process, how the provincial government has any legal authority to enter into these discussions, other than in an advisory capacity. After listening to the minister, who has talked about conservation and the fact that the province has some interest in conservation of stocks -- which is desirable -- I don't understand under what authority the minister believes it has any right to negotiate in matters concerning fish.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member partly answered his own question with regard to our commitment to look after the interests and hear the concerns of British Columbians with regard to conservation.
The same can be said for economic interests. British Columbia fishers are part of B.C.'s economy, and it behooves the provincial government to stand up for those interests in any type of tripartite negotiation that involves the federal government. Actually, in reference to the BNA Act, I think that when we're looking at such things as environmental assessment -- fish or whatever it may be -- it is, perhaps, an opportunity for the province to have more of a say with regard to issues that affect the people of British Columbia -- from which we have too often been precluded because of the BNA Act. A modern treaty is actually an opportunity to enable the province to stand up for the interests of British Columbia.
[3:15]
C. Serwa: Again, I might say: "Well spoken." Nevertheless, the reality is that neither the minister nor the provincial government has the legal authority to make the determination of what happens with the fish, no more than I have that legal authority. The fact remains that it's a federal government responsibility. Obviously, the interests of the province matter a great deal; obviously, the fishery means a great deal to the economy of British Columbia. It's my understanding that the value of the fish landed in Prince Rupert, for example, exceeds the entire value of the eastern seaboard catch of saltwater fish; it's certainly very, very significant.
The point I was trying to make is that the provincial influence in the actual final determination is not anywhere nearly as strong as the minister would have us believe. On the matter of conservation -- and that is a very serious concern -- the minister has indicated that the federal government has been lax or indifferent to the conservation of fish stocks in British Columbia. I can say, similarly, that the province has
[ Page 14199 ]
been very indifferent to the conservation of fish stocks in the province itself, and certainly to the conservation of game animals in British Columbia. That's a serious concern I have.
One of the real problems in this whole issue of the treaty negotiations is the rewriting of history with a significant amount of wistful thinking and goodwill. The government is proceeding on the basis of perceived wrongs and historical injustices, riding forth as the white knight in shining armour and giving away things. I don't know if the end result is going to be what they believe it is; I simply do not believe that the end result is going to lead to the goal or objective that many hope it will lead to. I think there are opportunities within the province for all of us, regardless of our ethnic background. It's up to us to seize those opportunities, not for someone to give those opportunities to us.
The treaty negotiations are very important. But, again, if we look at the concept of conservation, if we look at the Sto:lo people and what happened to the salmon over the last two years, in my mind it is not, in any way, shape or form, a responsible act by the Sto:lo people to use modern technology -- not primitive technology, where they had the right to the resource, but modern technology -- for the harvest of the salmon.
It's the same thing with the wildlife. For example, two natives from the Prince George area virtually eliminated the Pink Mountain bison herd. No steps were taken by this government with any concern for conservation. The animals were not indigenous and not traditional, in the manner that they were there and had been there for hundreds or thousands of years. They were simply stock that got away from a ranch and continued to multiply. There was no significant action taken by the province with respect to conservation.
Numerous incidents occur throughout the province with wildlife -- in the Princeton area and certainly here on Vancouver Island, where elk have been shot. On Vancouver Island we're looking at transplanted animals from the Olympic peninsula -- the Roosevelt elk -- and again with no concern with conservation.
It seems again, unfortunately, as the member for Richmond-Steveston has said, that there are two sets of rules in place right now with respect to the Ministry of Environment. This leads to more and more concerns for British Columbians. While we're talking at the moment about fish, later on we'll certainly talk about wildlife and the concerns that have been made evident with respect to treaty negotiations.
In the end, the minister -- and I've listened to some of the debate -- is using a different form of looking at it than the minister has used in the previous year or two in estimates. The words of finality and certainty come forward more and more often. Yet the minister has said in previous debate in estimates that these treaty negotiations are much like a union agreement that can be opened up every two years and then renegotiated. It's a process like planning, that has no beginning and no ending, no alpha and no omega. It appears that it has the potential to go on.
I listen to the minister. Now he's talking about openness. Openness was never a concern in previous estimates, but after the Premier's speaking on it, openness seems to be coming forward. I think that, by the way, is a very healthy occurrence. If the treaty negotiations are in fact to succeed and to win the confidence of not only the native people but the non-native people in British Columbia, openness is going to have to be a very major factor in the negotiations and for the acceptance of the final treaty plan, whenever that occurs.
I certainly hope that the minister will continue to look at these issues objectively, with the reality that he not only serves the native people, or the perceived historical injustice that he continues to refer to, but looks at the best interests for the native and the non-native people -- all of the citizens of British Columbia.
Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you to the member for Okanagan West. I appreciate hearing his comments. I just want to reflect on some of the hon. member's comments.
The hon. member referred to provincial economic interests and conservation, and I think we've canvassed that. The hon. member suggested that there had been some real concerns with regard to the conservation of those entities that the province -- by definition, the BNA Act and all that -- is responsible for. He referred to game and also, I believe, to freshwater fish.
As a former Minister of the Environment, I know that the hon. member knows how important it is to carry that message forward to the decision-making process at the big table. I also know that this hon. member has done that when he was the minister. But I do want to say that when I became the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, one of the first things I did was to succeed in getting 15 new conservation officers plus six other staff related to conservation officer work, which was the largest increase that had taken place in the province in 20 years. I'm not saying that to try to confront the hon. member; I'm trying to say that we both know from experience how important this is. Yet when you put it in the context of all the other things that government is trying to manage, it's something we need to continue to do. I believe that the former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has also recently brought in some further measures for conservation and environmental protection. It may be that that will be canvassed when the Environment estimates come up.
The hon. member referred to a rewriting of history. No, hon. member, we're not into rewriting history. I have said many times -- I said it in the estimates last year -- that we can't put toothpaste back into the tube. I hope that hon. members don't do anything out of a sense of shame or a sense of guilt. I don't have that. I don't feel guilty; I don't feel a sense of shame. But I think I might feel a sense of not taking up my responsibility if I wasn't diligently trying to build a new relationship, a more effective relationship, a relationship which would be more of a service to both people of first nations and non-first nations. That's what this is about: seeking to build a new relationship. I'm not interested in going back into history and saying: "Okay, we're going to try to re-create what existed 150 years ago." I'm not interested in people's economic surveys, where they say: "This is the wealth of the land that has been taken out of a traditional territory." I'm not interested in that because I don't think that's helpful. Nor am I interested in somebody saying we should add up all the funds that have been spent on first nations peoples through the old relationship; I don't think that's helpful either. I think what we're trying to do is talk about how we can build a new relationship.
[ Page 14200 ]
It's something that.... I noticed a news sheet that came out today: the Twigg report. I don't have it in front of me, and I can't remember the words that Mr. Twigg used. But it does refer to the need for parties on all sides to have -- I think he said -- a sense of altruism towards each other. I think we have to try to achieve that in order to be able to resolve this effectively.
The hon. member referred to perceived wrongs. What we're trying to do is recognize, first of all, that the present relationship with first nations is not working for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons, many of the reasons, have to do with our own self-interest, such as roads throughout the province that are in trespass. These are issues that haven't been resolved by federal and provincial governments for many, many generations. We simply have to try to achieve certainty through treaty agreements, because the situation as it now stands is very, very difficult to resolve.
The hon. member referred to.... Some of the examples that he cited with regard to aboriginal people and some conservation issues.... I do know that there are those examples out there. I would encourage the hon. member.... I know he wasn't trying to do this, but I think we have to be very careful that we don't send a message that we're tarring everybody with the same brush, which we're not. I know that the hon. member knows aboriginal people who do not fit into those examples at all; I know that he is very much aware of such people.
I just want to mention with regard to that that the Nisga'a -- just to talk about the Nisga'a for a moment -- have received an award for their stewardship on the Nass River. Their work has been recognized with regard to the way in which they are working with various fishers' communities and the way in which they are being very respectful of that resource. That has been recognized. One of the things that has been discussed -- I think the hon. member is aware of this -- is the possibility of some technology that helps to enhance the protection we're talking about. It's really an old technology, a technology that goes back to the time of precontact, which is the fishwheel. In certain circumstances, this would enable them to take those fish in the bycatch that they don't want to be destroyed and put them back into the river in good shape -- I think it's probably at the same time a fairly good counting technique -- and at the same time to be harvesting the numbers of fish that are scientifically approved to be appropriate for harvest. I think that at that table there's quite a bit of agreement on the possibility of some of those kinds of considerations.
The hon. member referred to some issues regarding elk poaching, etc. I do have to recognize that this happens among different elements of our society. But we should also remember that when an aboriginal person shot a trophy sheep at a salt lick up in the Kootenays, one of the very first statements to come out publicly was that of the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket saying that they deplored that and that it should be dealt with to the letter of the law. To go on to the point of finality and certainty, in negotiating modern treaties I don't think we should go beyond the appropriateness of the administration of contract law. I'm saying that not as a lawyer; I'm saying it as a layperson, and it could be that I could stand to be corrected on that.
[3:30]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Let me give an example of what I'm saying. From time to time there can be a mutual interest in revisiting a topic that has been negotiated. I'm not talking about the type of situation that seems to apply to hockey players and baseball players, but let's look at the example of the Musqueam. I realize that there's a bit of a problem with this example because it was negotiated by the federal government on behalf of the Musqueam, which is not exactly a parallel. As I understand it, for several years in that case there was a limitation, I believe, of $300 for a lease. At that time many people wrote letters to the editor and said that this was an injustice and they were ashamed that such a small amount was being paid to these people for the use of that land. But then this date and time clicks in, and all of a sudden I'm reading that the first nation can charge as much as $15,000. So we have an amount going from $300 to $15,000. I would think in that instance that the non-aboriginal people would want to have the opportunity to renegotiate that in their interest.
When it comes to the question of finality, on the basis of the information we have, we have to do the very best job we possibly can. But we have to recognize that sometimes either party -- and it could be the non-aboriginal party -- might say: "Hey, we want to look at this again; this isn't exactly the way we understood it was going to work out." I do take the hon. member's point about certainty and finality. We have to build everything into it that we possibly can in order to make it work well.
Finally, I want to say that in listening to the hon. member's comments, I believe that virtually every comment he made was a strong argument in favour of achieving the certainty that would come through the negotiation of honourable modern treaties.
G. Wilson: While we're on the matter of fish -- or we were; we went into a bit of a divergence there -- can the minister tell us his government's position with respect to the Sparrow ruling? Is it the position of this government that the Sparrow ruling warranted commercial sale of fish? Is that what this minister's interpretation is of that judge's decision?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.
G. Wilson: In light of that, I wonder if the minister might clarify what is meant.... I realize that we discussed some of this last week, but in reviewing Hansard on it, I think there were two questions I neglected to ask. If there is no entitlement to commercial sale -- and I would concur; I think that's the same position that we take -- can the minister clarify what is meant by: "All harvest entitlements are provided on a commercial basis with respect to the Nisga'a settlement"?
Hon. J. Cashore: I apologize to the hon. member. I was listening to some advice with regard to an answer, and I didn't hear the question clearly. But I think the hon. member asked me what I meant by saying, in my earlier statement, that "all harvest entitlements are provided on..." -- and I think he thought I said "a commercial basis." I actually said -- and I'm glad to be able to point to this out for Hansard -- "on a communal basis." I apologize for my bad diction. Had I had the dramatic training that the hon. member has had, I would have been more clear with my words.
[ Page 14201 ]
With regard to the point that the hon. member made, I just want to read something into the record here:
"In recognition of the unique state of the salmon fishery in the Nass River, the province has supported a provision for Nisga'a to sell their food fish" -- that's 'their food fish' -- "that they have present entitlement to. This regulates the sale of food fish and brings it into the regular marketplace...and off the black market."
I do want to add a proviso and say that it is not a reference to the Nisga'a when I say "and off the black market."
The statement is indicating one of the reasons for seeking to achieve in modern settlements what I understand would be the case at the time the treaty is signed: the entitlement to food fish would no longer exist. It would be supplanted by the rights contained in the treaty.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that clarification, because I thought maybe I had missed something the other day.
I'd like to draw the minister's attention, then, with respect to fisheries and the aboriginal fish strategy.... I apologize if the minister has not had copies of this; I'll be happy to send it over if he needs it. It effectively is a response to a letter that I've written to the Minister of Fisheries -- a response coming back on December 14, 1994 -- in which the minister talks about the fact that in his judgment.... I'll quote. He says, "Generally speaking, the fish stocks on the west coast are in a healthy state, and their management is sound," and then goes on to say: "The facts simply do not support the conclusion that the west coast fishery is 'at risk'" -- as I had suggested they were in my letter. He suggested that one of the reasons why that was so was the work that was currently being undertaken with respect to the AFS in the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board and the independent review board, and that the province is taking an active role in it.
I wonder -- given that it is very much a functional part of the aboriginal fish strategy federally -- to what extent this ministry is actively participating in that review process and to what extent the information from that is going to be used as a negotiating position with respect to the final settlement on fish through the Treaty Commission process.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I just want to make clear.... I think it's clear, but I believe the hon. member was referring to a letter from the federal Minister of Fisheries. I want to reiterate a statement I made a few moments ago that government and industry now realize the need to rationalize the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia. They feel strongly that the fisheries component of the treaty must be flexible enough to fit into any future restructuring such as comes out of the John Fraser report.
With regard to the provincial role in AFS, I really do not have the details of an answer. That should be provided through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; I simply don't have that with me. But with regard to the AFS, I can tell you that our government has expressed its concerns through the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food -- and also through myself, on many occasions. We have some very serious concerns with regard to how that strategy has been carried out.
G. Wilson: I would share that concern. I think the minister hit the nail firmly on the head when he said that there was rising frustration with what appears to be little more than political rhetoric coming from Ottawa with respect to potential resolution, especially on the matter of fish. I won't read them all into the record, but over the last year I have written repeatedly to Minister Tobin on this question, and I have received very little back other than platitudes that everything's fine; just don't worry about it; the fish stocks are going to be as well managed as they were on the East Coast -- which is rather a tragedy.
Nevertheless, the concern I have with it is that we are about to enter into an agreement with respect to the Nisga'a entitlement to food fish, which is undoubtedly going to be used as a precedent for the settlement of at least 12 other potential claims that will have fish and access to the resource on a commercial basis as a substantial component. I'm not talking about food fish in terms of Sparrow; I'm talking about the broader matter of commerce here. I recognize Sparrow; I don't have an issue with Sparrow; we see that.
My concern is that if conservation is going to be the primary concern.... I would applaud the government for taking that stand. If we are going to make sure that the provisions of pseudo-independent work that is being done on behalf of the federal government are going to be administered adequately in the province, it would seem to me that we would have to be pushing for one regulation. I wonder where the minister's negotiators stand on that matter.
I realize that you can't negotiate land claims in this venue, and I don't expect that the minister will do that, but I do think it's important that we and the fishers of this province -- those people whose livelihoods depend on it -- understand where the government's coming from on this question. They get very mixed messages from the federal government. You'll hear something quite different from Minister Tobin, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, than you're going to hear from Minister Irwin, who's the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
What I'm hearing in my constituency.... My constituency runs from Gibsons Landing almost to Bella Coola. This minister will know that there are many aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities whose dependency on fish is high. They want to know that this government is looking toward one regulation, one set of rules, that will apply evenly and equally to all of the people who access that resource. If the minister could assure us that that's a functional part of the negotiating position of this government, they might at least rest easier knowing that one of the two government agencies is looking for some kind of equity in the provision of the stock.
Hon. J. Cashore: The point is well taken. We want to see equity with regard to the stock. I have acknowledged in earlier answers to questions that there is the element of treaty-making in which we are seeking to see that if there is an agreement for the sale of food fish, it would become a treaty entitlement, and there would no longer be the previous entitlement as under Sparrow. That would be a quid pro quo, but I think we have to recognize the general principle that the laws of general application apply.
There have to be effective measures for monitoring and enforcement provided in the treaty. For instance, Nisga'a fishery officers would receive their training under approved programs of the responsible government agency, and Nisga'a fishery officers would be employees of or under contract to the responsible government agency. There would have to be
[ Page 14202 ]
the establishment of designated landing sites, and appropriate auditing would have to be carried out by the responsible government agency. Any sale of fish would be subject to the laws of general application, and all harvest entitlements would be held communally.
G. Wilson: Can the minister then clarify what, in his view, is the responsible government agency? Is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or is it a provincial...? I see the minister is nodding that yes, it's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So, notwithstanding the fact that there is Nisga'a administration, there is still an overriding administration by DFO in terms of regulation. Is that right?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. With regard to anything that has to do with the environment or a renewable resource, the laws of general application would apply; the meet-or-beat standard would also apply. It would be required that any standard with regard to the stewardship of those resources would at the very least meet provincial standards and also, in instances such as I have just outlined, that it would be under the control, in this instance, of a federal agency.
I also want to point out to the hon. member that, with regard to a point he raised earlier regarding correspondence, I will send him a copy of the letter we wrote with regard to our position on the AFS, just so he will have that in hand.
G. Wilson: I will send the minister copies of the letters I have, and then perhaps we can get together and commiserate on the miserable responses we've had.
However, having said that, I know that the member for Prince George-Omineca is anxious to get in the debate, and I did say I would have a few questions on fish. I do want to come back and get into matters of land taxation and self-taxing authority, but at this point I yield to the member for Prince George-Omineca.
[3:45]
L. Fox: I thank the leader of the Alliance Party for giving me this opportunity.
I've listened with great interest this afternoon, particularly in question period to the minister's answer to one question, where he seemed to indicate that he's had the tools all along to provide more openness about what's happening in the Nisga'a agreement. But up until recently, he has been citing the confidentiality clause contained within the agreement. I think I'd like to read that clause into the record. It's section 7.1 of the agreement, headed "Communication, Consultation and Public Awareness." It reads:
"Subject to paragraph 7.2, the parties agree that the public -- including individuals, groups or organizations having a particular interest in the outcome of the negotiations -- should be knowledgeable and well informed regarding the general status, aims, objectives and progress of the negotiations, and for that purpose...."
Then, section 7.1.1 says:
"The parties will together develop and implement a process of public information and consultation, and will attend meetings with such selected individuals, organizations or groups as they may agree will assist in the process of public consensus-building...."
Section 7.1.2 says:
"The parties may separately carry out such additional consultation and communications initiatives as they see fit, including initiatives to obtain a broad range of input and consensus."
Section 7.2 says:
"Except to the extent the parties agree that disclosure is necessary or desirable to achieve the principles and objectives described in paragraph 7.1, details of positions and documents exchanged or developed during negotiations will be confidential."
It seems to me that it's a fairly straightforward proposal that was accepted by all parties, and under that clause the minister does have that ability. He seemed to indicate that today during question period in a question asked by the member for Richmond-Steveston. Maybe the minister would just like to comment on it.
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member for reading that into the record. I was planning to do the same thing myself, and now I don't have to do it. He's quite right. I would just go back to the beginning of the clause he read, 7.1, which says: "Subject to paragraph 7.2" Then it goes on and says all of these nice things about consultation and information, and all that that entails.
I do agree that that's in there, although I think if you compared it to the openness agreements that we have with six first nations, it pales in comparison. The clauses that the hon. member has just read pale in comparison to the openness agreements that we have with six first nations, which are going to guide deliberations. There's nothing in here, for instance, about enabling the media to come in to main-table sessions of a negotiation. There's nothing in here that foreshadows the kind of consultation that is now taking place as we get going with this new era of negotiations.
If the hon. member would objectively assess what is in this document, which was signed by the leader of the Reform Party when he was the Minister of Native Affairs in the previous Social Credit government.... In any objective assessment of what this hon. member has just read in comparison to the openness agreements that have been put in place in consultation and negotiation with the Sechelt, he would say that the agreement with the Sechelt is outstanding compared to anything that's in the Nisga'a agreement that was signed by his leader.
I would also point out to this hon. member that the Leader of the Third Party and the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast attended the news conference when the Sechelt openness agreement was released, and both of them had very positive words. They were saying that it was a very good day for openness, and it was good to see this happening.
I'll also point out to the hon. member that this province won't enter into negotiations with anybody unless they have an openness agreement; that's a bottom line with us. We won't go beyond whatever stage that agreement is negotiated, whether it's at the second or the third stage. We won't go beyond it without an openness agreement that fulfils our commitment to openness.
Let's recognize what's happening in the area of openness: receiving the insight and input of first nations who are also committed to openness, and of the government of Canada, which has come on-board on this issue. It was all started by the Premier back in September at the Union of B.C. Munici-
[ Page 14203 ]
palities convention in Whistler, where he stated that openness would be the order of the day. In some instances, as the hon. member recognizes -- and that's also reflected here in this agreement -- it's necessary that they go in camera on certain types of issues, but openness is the order of the day.
With regard to what the hon. member just read, I do have to point out, first of all, that when 7.1 talks about those very limited ways in which this agreement, which was signed by the Leader of the Third Party -- which isn't all that adequate.... It goes into some ways in which the public would be consulted and in which information would get out. It does start off by saying: "Subject to paragraph 7.2...." What's in paragraph 7.2? Paragraph 7.2 states something that governs every other openness consideration in this document. It says -- and I'll read it again: "Except to the extent the parties agree that disclosure is necessary and desirable to achieve the principles and objectives described in paragraph 7.1, details of positions and documents exchanged or developed during negotiations will be confidential." Compare that, hon. member, to the fact that, on this very day, we're tabling a position and we're asking that by June 1 we have the ability to make it public. Because of this document, which is signed by the Leader of the Third Party, we have to get the permission of those other parties in order to do that.
L. Fox: There are a couple of things I would like to address with respect to the minister's response. It has been very obvious, since October 1991, that this government has tried to hide under this confidentiality clause. The fact of the matter is that there is the ability under this clause for the minister to seek the opportunity to release information that would be very useful in informing the public around what is being negotiated at the table. Up until recently.... I grant the minister that since last September, there has been a new approach by this government. I think that, partially, we've seen that new approach as well because the aboriginal people understand that if they're going to have an informed British Columbia, part of that is going to be from opening the process up.
While this agreement cited was, I believe, signed in 1989, if I recall correctly -- or in that vicinity -- the climate of that day among the aboriginal people was somewhat different than the climate of today. The climate of today is one of recognition by the aboriginal people that they have to have a better-informed public in order to bring all their concerns forward.
I want to say as well that the Reform Party very strongly supports the need to resolve these claims, and to resolve them in a way that we strengthen the native community in British Columbia so that they can become, indeed, a very productive part of the province, and so that they might work with the rest of British Columbians equally to bring prosperity and quality of life. I just wanted to put that on the record, and I appreciate the minister's response earlier.
I have a few other questions. There are presently 43 native groups who have filed statements of intent to negotiate treaties under the B.C. Treaty Commission. Many of these were filed at the same time. Given that the ministry has very limited resources, how will these be prioritized?
Hon. J. Cashore: In regard to the hon. member's earlier comments, I just wanted to clarify.... The confidentiality clause that was signed by the Leader of the Third Party was signed on March 20, 1991; that was the date. The hon. member is right: that was in an earlier era, and a lot has happened. I want to give credit to the hon. member for crediting aboriginal people for their role in providing leadership to help to achieve openness. If we don't have that leadership coming from all three parties -- such as was the case with the Premier in September -- then we're not going to get these openness agreements. It's very clear now that without them, we're not going to be able to proceed. I think we all have different perspectives on how we got there, but the fact is that that's where we are now.
I just want to point out that with regard to the Nisga'a negotiations, doing everything we possibly can under the terms of reference of the clause that the hon. member has just read into the record, there have been 28 regional main-table advisory committee meetings; there have been 30 regional third-party forestry advisory committee meetings; there have been 23 regional third-party fisheries advisory committee meetings; 17 regional third-party mining advisory committee meetings; 14 regional third-party self-government and taxation advisory committee meetings; seven regional third-party wildlife advisory committee meetings; six regional third-party advisory committee -- Nass Valley Residents' Association -- meetings; and 17 general third-party consultations. And I don't know if that includes the times that I have travelled into the area personally and been present to speak to public meetings and to receive the questions of those who came out to those meetings. So I think that any objective assessment would be that we have followed through on the spirit of that agreement that was signed.
With regard to the 43 statements of intent, the hon. member has pointed out a very significant issue here: it's the manageability of the process. We've made a commitment to negotiate modern treaties, but it's not an open-ended process. There have to be constraints, and the constraints have to be those constraints that fit into the budget requirements of a government. There are two elements in which those restraints apply: one is when it comes to the treaty negotiation costs, and the other is with the settlement costs.
The hon. member's question was in the context of the treaty negotiation costs. We have come to a negotiated agreement of the understanding among the three parties of what the position of the provincial government is with regard to the funding of these negotiations. There has been pressure on us to increase the amount of money going into negotiations, and we have held the line on that. We believe we need to hold the line in order to seek to achieve economies of scale.
The task force report which was agreed to by the federal, provincial and first nations summit, and which was.... Actually, again it was the Leader of the Third Party when he was the minister who had, along with the other two parties, authorized the process that led to that report. When we became government we accepted all the recommendations within that report. But one of the things that was foreshadowed in the report was that there would be less than 30 sets of negotiations. And as the member points out, already we have 43 statements of intent, and more coming.
[4:00]
So we have five regional negotiating teams in the province, and we are seeking to enable the greatest value for the dollar in that process by seeking the economies of scale of accomplishing what we can on a regional basis. In other
[ Page 14204 ]
words, we think there are some issues that need to be negotiated that would be pro forma for the various parties within a region, and that they could achieve economies of scale by coming together instead of us having to go through it several times with each of the different first nations that filed statements. So we are trying to find ways to get the most progress, the most result, from those resources that we have budgeted for this, and in doing so we seek to try to achieve those economies of scale. But the fact is that we can only achieve what our available resources can achieve.
L. Hanson: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
L. Hanson: On behalf of the Speaker, we have visiting us in the gallery today a group of students from Riverview Elementary School in Snohomish, Washington. They are the second half of a group of students who have come up to observe some of the affairs of the British Columbia Legislature, and they are accompanied by a number of chaperons and adults who are looking after them. Would the House please join me in making our American neighbours welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore: Further to the last question, I wanted to point out that we are negotiating the recognition of that regional approach into framework agreements. So we are seeking recognition from the first nations that, wherever possible, we will use that regional approach when it comes to those issues that can be negotiated on a regional basis rather than on a first-nation-to-first-nation basis.
L. Fox: If I take that logic forward, then, and if I understand what the minister has put to us, there will be issues that may be able to be negotiated on a regional basis. That would also suggest to me that we're looking at some consistency in how they are to be settled throughout the negotiations. Given that, how much of a precedent, in presenting this to the aboriginal people, is the Nisga'a claim going to be? Is the standard set during this claim going to be the standard which is used to try to bring forward regional consensus on particular issues?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is very significant, but it's not a template; I think we can say that from one negotiation to another, with regard to other first nations. We are seeking an evenness in administration around some of the situations -- for instance, regarding child protection and some of those aspects of a treaty.
L. Fox: Obviously, just following up a little more, then there would have to be some variance in areas other than those social areas. In terms of the financial areas and certainly of the assets applied, there would have to be significant variances in different parts of the province. It seems to me that the regional negotiations would have to be pretty well restricted to the social areas of concern. Is that not correct?
Hon. J. Cashore: There are some broader, resource-type issues that could be applied in the same way. An example is watershed management, for instance, where you would seek to negotiate certain standards and, again, a standard approach among first nations with regard to how to manage that issue.
L. Fox: I have just one further small question, because it was my understanding that initially the design was to negotiate with each band on a state-of-readiness situation and that there was some vision that there would be quite a lapse period, because many bands aren't as far along as others. While there may be some that have their state of readiness almost prepared, there are others that do not.
It was also my understanding -- and I don't know whether this has changed -- that, prior to them being at the state of readiness, if there was any overlap in terms of claims, they had to resolve those among themselves before the talks started. Is that still the policy?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, our principle there is that they are capable of resolving those issues themselves. If we are to finalize a treaty and those issues are not resolved, they have to have a process that we accept in place that will assure that the issues will be resolved.
L. Fox: One final question, then, on that issue is: of the 43 that have filed statements of intent, how many are in a state of readiness to move forward?
Hon. J. Cashore: Six are declared ready. As the hon. member knows, the Sechelt have actually got into the AIP stage.
L. Fox: If we're going to have some negotiations on a regional basis, we're a long way from deciding what issues we might be able to negotiate presently. Obviously those six would be spread around the province. In the interim, other than the Sechelt, are we not moving forward in those other negotiations, waiting to see whether we can approach this on a regional basis?
Hon. J. Cashore: An example of a regional approach would be the Gitksan, the Wet'suwet'en and the Gitanyow. We believe that there would be some issues that we could do there. With regard to readiness, we think that others are imminent. I can't say how soon, but I would expect that quite a few more first nations will be declared ready within the next few weeks. As the hon. member knows, they would be declared ready by the B.C. Treaty Commission.
I would point out that in most cases treaties will take quite a considerable time to conclude. A lot of work can be done in the preliminary stages on setting out the terms and conditions -- sort of the modus operandi for the negotiations -- that are going to take place, outlining the topics and how they're going to address them, and then getting into it. As treaties are unfolding throughout the province it will start to take shape in the sense that the various first nations in different regions of the province, will have a number of topics identified that can be considered on a regional basis.
L. Fox: I'll move on to another issue. The federal government is presently reviewing its stated policy of acknowledging the inherent right to self-government. Is the province also revisiting its policy?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. In some ways the provincial government is in an enviable position compared to the federal government in that there are so many different sets of circumstances throughout the country for the federal minis-
[ Page 14205 ]
ter to try to relate to. For the most part in British Columbia, given the imperatives of the courts, we take the position that self-government is subject to negotiation; therefore it would be subject to negotiation at the treaty table.
The way I like to characterize it is that what is currently undefined will become defined; what is currently uncertain will become certain. And that will be in the negotiated agreements, with regard to the definition of what self-government is, in a very site-specific way. It will be dealing with actual practical situations that will be defined at that table. Everybody knows that there is a lot of confusion out there in the current set of circumstances, and that's what treaties should change. Self-government is as practical as achieving certainty with regard to a road issue, so we don't have these interminable situations where, because a road is in trespass, we're not able to easily resolve an issue. Treaties will be a means of negotiating resolve, so that we don't have those problems again.
L. Fox: It might help -- me certainly, and my constituents, I think -- if I could have some explanation as to what this government sees as the inherent right to self-government. Does it see a municipal model like the Sechelt's? Does it see a model which may have some tribal concerns, hunting rights, or laws governing hunting and fishing that are separate from the rest of other Canadians? Just exactly what does the province envision?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think that where the term "inherent right" is used, it refers to a pre-existing condition prior to contact; I think it's generally recognized that first nations were self-governing communities at that time.
But to give a more practical answer, I want to say a bit about what self-government is not about. This is the position of the provincial government: it's not about sovereignty; it's not about tax havens; it's not about setting up separate nations, in the sense of a balkanized situation -- it's not about that; it's not about setting up borders; it's not about setting up two justice systems; and it's not about inconsistent taxation. It's not about that.
Some of the topics that it is about, and the array of issues that you can see are decided within the context of a framework agreement to be discussed, have to do with self-government: family and child services, social welfare, education, health care services, justice and policing issues -- we're not talking about two separate systems, but we are talking about being able to negotiate around justice and policing issues -- traffic and transportation regulation, preservation of cultural heritage, fish and wildlife management, arrangements with local governments, health and safety standards, labour practices and standards, and delegated legislative authority and accountability.
[4:15]
L. Fox: Just one thing, and I'm not sure that I heard it in with what it is about or what it is not about. I have to ask: what about environmental standards and conditions? Unless I missed it, I didn't hear that mentioned on either side. Perhaps the minister might inform me on that.
Hon. J. Cashore: We don't see it as a self-government issue, because of our meet-or-beat standards. The provincial standards will apply.
G. Wilson: It brings us sort of naturally, then, to the questions I have on what the government's anticipation is with respect to the matter of taxation in the self-government proposition. I want to be very specific with respect to property taxation, because I think that a fundamental principle in the operation of western democracy in Canada is that taxation without representation is something that we don't condone. Therefore if we're to have taxation, there has to be some way in which you can have representation on those boards, committees or governments that are empowered to levy fees or taxes against you.
We've got an interesting situation existing in self-taxing authorities, and there are a number of them. I want to use a very specific case example which the minister may be aware of -- in fact, I know the minister is aware of it because I've communicated with his office on this over the last year and a bit. It has to do with a case that exists with the Sliammon Indian band. I don't reference Sliammon for any other reason except than that Sliammon has been granted self-taxing authority and self-taxing status, and it is now able to levy property tax against leaseholders who have capital improvements -- i.e., houses -- on aboriginal land. They are treated as though they are fee simple property holders. They are assessed by the B.C. Assessment Authority, which is acting as a subcontractor to the Sliammon Indian band, as though they were fee simple holders.
But in this one instance -- it affects roughly 40 people -- there is a strip of land retained by the Sliammon Indian band that borders the high-water mark to where these properties are, and yet these properties are taxed as waterfront. Here is an interesting legal problem. First and foremost, if you were to tax that land as anything other than leased properties within Sliammon.... I think that the minister would agree that if that lease strip was a highway, a road, an easement or a legally registered access, that would therefore change the tax structure in terms of that property. But by virtue of the fact that the land that is withheld is federal in its jurisdiction, the B.C. Assessment Authority is treating it as though those properties go to the water, and therefore the taxes go up. That's inherently unfair, I think, to those people who have no use of it. Obviously, the Sliammon Indian band can use that land when and as they wish, because it's theirs to do that with.
I would like the minister to comment on that. It seems to me that in the negotiation process, as we get into self-government, it's important that there be an inherent fairness in the process by which this property taxation system is done. That's one point.
The second point -- and it relates directly to it -- is that property owners in British Columbia are able to defer taxes. A lot of seniors, in particular, get hit with quickly rising property taxes because the resale values of neighbouring properties go up, and therefore their assessments go up and their taxes go up -- mill rates within the local communities force them up. But they're able to defer taxes. In this case, people who are leaseholders on aboriginal land cannot defer taxes within British Columbia under provincial statutes, because, it's argued by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations, they cannot go back and claim the land if there's a forfeiture, because it's federal land. So that's inherently unfair. I would like to get the minister's comments on that, because this is something that's affecting a growing number of British Columbians.
[ Page 14206 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with the hon. member on both counts. I think in both of those situations there is a fundamental inequity; I don't think it's appropriate. Those would be part of a long list of issues that exist now that I don't think are appropriate. Hopefully, through the treaty-making process, we are able to address those inequities. Again, at the end of the day, non-aboriginal British Columbians are going to want to see what is in a treaty that addresses their interests. These are two very good examples of issues that should be on the table, to seek to find a way to enable those two communities of people -- some of whom are on first nations land -- to not have this thing as a constant separating factor in their lives.
G. Wilson: I am pleased to hear that response, because I think British Columbians living on reserve land -- who are leaseholders on reserve land, who have put a lot money into their own capital improvements -- are going to want to be assured that when the negotiations over the self-government process occur, their rights as property owners, or property lease holders, are going to be somehow protected.
I guess the second point on this issue, in the broader context, is around the proposition of lease renewals. We've seen a somewhat controversial situation in Tsawwassen, where some leaseholders had difficulty renewing their leases. As a result, the Tsawwassen Indian band took a pretty hard line with respect to non-renewal and forfeiture of capital improvements on those properties. Certainly, I guess, you could argue the point that you're free to either lease or not lease land on aboriginal property. Therefore, if you have concerns in this regard, don't lease the land in the first place -- you know, the "buyer beware" kind of thing. That's true to a degree.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who are already there and a lot of people who have already got capital improvements. They are concerned, in the negotiation process, as greater autonomy is provided to aboriginal communities, that they're going to have no recourse in the traditional courts of the province or the federal courts, should there be unfair practice with respect to renegotiation and extension of leases. At the moment, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the agency that is going to be dealing with that.
But what is anticipated, I'm told from Ottawa, is that once the self-government propositions are properly in place, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will step out. Then there will be no recourse to either provincial or federal courts on the matter, and they'll have to go to some form of negotiated arbitration. Well, that causes people some real concern, because there are some very clear legalities at work here, in terms of protection of investment, that people want to see being dealt with.
Hon. J. Cashore: Again I find myself agreeing with the analysis of the hon. member. I think the best opportunity the provincial government has to address this is through the.... It's sort of saying you can't get there from here. We have to start by a negotiated agreement as to how we can come up with a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Right now, under the present circumstances, they're federal lands in trust, as I understand it. It's a very difficult situation to come to terms with. I think we have to try. The real opportunity we have is in the treaty-making process.
G. Wilson: I'm making great progress. Normally.... I can recall past estimates where this minister and I bitterly disagreed on a lot of issues, and we're seemingly agreeing....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Perhaps this minister has converted his thinking somehow, and that's great.
Maybe the minister, then, could help me with a third area of concern around this question of an inherent right to self-government, recognizing the definition that was provided to us -- that's what it isn't and what it is, to the extent that it's been fleshed out. I think we want to flesh a couple of them out a bit more.
Let me use the Sechelts as an example, because I've had an opportunity to meet with the Sechelt Indian band -- the band council. I've actually met in what I think were very productive sessions with them. The minister will know that I think their record of eight years of self-government is exemplary. They've done an outstanding job. But there is one area that I have some real difficulty with. The way I phrased it to them and phrase it to the minister is: "I ask your help on this one, because I have some real difficulty understanding how we're going to 'sell' this" -- if I can use that term; and I say "we" in a generic way.
If you're going to implement an inherent right to government and there's going to be a transfer of legislative powers, which the minister said it is about -- those legislative powers have not yet been defined, and we don't know the extent to which those powers will be put in place -- how is it possible that we in British Columbia will permit the right of aboriginal people to seek and run for elected office in this chamber, but not provide an equal right for non-aboriginal people to seek to run and stand in elected office in their council and chamber? In the case of the Sechelt Indian band, how is it possible that we can have a former chief -- somebody I have a certain admiration for -- currently sitting on the non-aboriginal community of Sechelt council, but there could not be the same kind of consideration given to non-aboriginal people to sit on the council of the Sechelt Indian government district? That I have difficulty with, because I think it is inherently wrong.
I have the greatest respect for the Sechelt Indian people, for their band and for what they've done in eight years of self-government. But this is one issue that is inherently not what we as a people believe in. There must surely be equal right to access and to run for elected office, and there should not be restriction on one's entry into that process because of one's heritage. That's what the Indian Act did. It assigned status and land, and that was wrong; it was a racist document that was wrong. Surely, if we now entrench an inherent right to government that puts in place those same fundamental characteristics with respect to eligibility, that is equally wrong. I'd like the minister's comment on that.
Hon. J. Cashore: First, with regard to inherent right, our position is that we have recognized that politically. We know that there is debate around that, but we have recognized it politically. We have said that it will be defined in treaties, so that's where the definition for that comes.
With regard to the issue that the hon. member raises around representation, the fact is that we have stated very clearly that first nations will remain citizens of British Colum-
[ Page 14207 ]
bia and Canada. The Charter of Rights will apply, the Canadian constitution will apply and all that. Therefore they will have the rights of citizens; that's something that we have declared.
With regard to the issue that the hon. member is getting at -- and I do recognize that it's a challenging issue -- our position is, for instance, in the context of the Nisga'a, that residents of Nisga'a lands who are not Nisga'a citizens shall have adequate and appropriate means of representation with respect to Nisga'a government decisions which may affect them. This would include prior consultation, eligibility to vote and to run for office on subordinate elected bodies, guaranteed seats with full voting powers on subordinate elected bodies, and where such residents are taxed by Nisga'a government, such rights of representation as are made conditions of the delegation agreements.
I know that doesn't go as far as what the hon. member is advocating, and I recognize that. However, in the context of the integrity of the process that we are involved in -- which recognizes first nations as a people -- we believe that it is our responsibility to ensure, to the greatest extent possible in the process that I've just outlined, that their rights have effect with regard to anything that happens during their time of residency on those lands and are protected in that way.
[4:30]
G. Wilson: I just have a couple more questions, and then I'll yield. That provision doesn't go as far as I think it should -- the minister is correct. I'm not going to hammer away at this right now, because I think we've been through this before. We are both very clearly on record, we see where we agree to disagree, and we'll just leave it at that for the time being.
I want to talk a bit about this question of citizenship, in terms of eligibility. In the negotiation of eligibility, that is, with respect to the overall compensation package, the matter of.... Let's deal with the Nisga'a, because that's one of the more concrete ones we can talk about. If there's going to be the proposition as was agreed upon in, I think, March 1994.... I could be wrong on those dates, but I think it was March 1994 when the citizenship agreement was put in place with the Nisga'a with respect to the establishment of the eight members from the four clan groups and so on. We don't need to go back through all that. When that agreement was put in place with respect to determination of Nisga'a citizenship, did that also mean that eligibility with respect to compensation was tied to that process? Or is there a judicial process that runs parallel to the determination of citizenship that might also provide for eligibility based on...? I can think of a series of conditions -- for example, past tenure or principal property ownership. I can think of a whole series of reasons why somebody might have a claim. Even though they were denied Nisga'a citizenship, they may still have a claim to some part of the compensation package that may come out of a final negotiation. If the minister can see that distinction.... Let me put it to you very simply: if you're not deemed to be a Nisga'a citizen, does that render you ineligible for any portion of the claim regardless of what other conditions you may wish to put before some form of tribunal?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to the question is yes. There is an appeal process if there's a dispute over that. I would also point out that compensation is not based on an individual allocation process; it is compensation that would go to the first nation collectively.
G. Wilson: The appeal process -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- is still not a judicial process, in the sense that it is two members from the band government and a member from the senior civil service, if I recall the debate. There is no external judicial process. Even though the compensation would go to the band as a whole, it is certainly up to the band as to how they're going to allocate that in terms of property rights or access to a resource or any kind of measure that may be there with respect to the provision of those resources.
This is my last question on this, and then I would yield to the member for Richmond-Steveston -- whom I would like to thank, actually, for letting me in to get this section done before I have to leave. The last question relates to the question on citizenship. Is the minister saying that if you are a Nisga'a citizen, you are eligible as per the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to all of the rights and freedoms of any Canadian citizen, and that therefore you may freely access all aspects of Canadian government services -- social services, education, health and all those sorts of things -- outside Nisga'a traditional territory, and in addition to that, you are also eligible to all of the rights that may accrue to you as a result of the treaty that is finalized; but a Canadian citizen, who is equally protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, would be ineligible for the provision of the same services, even though they may well be funded out of the Canadian tax base generally, if they are deemed to be non-Nisga'a? If that's the case, then I'd like the minister to explain how that stands the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm trying to think of an instance that might be applied to the point that the hon. member is making. For instance, if there were non-Nisga'a children attending a school that was operated by the Nisga'a, there would be a process worked out whereby the costs would be covered, and therefore that child would be eligible to receive the benefits that the child is entitled to.
C. Serwa: I just want to put up an example of that, because the concern the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has raised has occurred in the Okanagan Valley. It's a smaller concern, but it's evidence of what he was saying. It has to do with the provision of services. In this particular case, native residents on band land on the west side have access to all of the goods and services, including, for example, rights of access to the local library system, the Okanagan Regional Library system. The reality, though, is that the 6,000-plus non-native residents of band land do not have that right of access, in spite of paying equivalent taxes; the tax base does not go to the appropriate sources. There was no protocol established when the federal government enabled native taxation that encouraged any type of dialogue between bands and the provincial government, or between bands and municipal governments or regional districts. Consequently, we treat two classes of Canadian citizens -- British Columbia citizens and Canadian citizens -- in different manners. I think that was the type of example the member was referring to.
Hon. J. Cashore: Exactly, hon. member. What treaties should enable us to do is resolve those kinds of inequities that have been identified in the example the hon. member has just given.
[ Page 14208 ]
A. Warnke: Actually, I want to follow up in the same vein of thought here because, in a way, we can come back full circle in discussing and debating the Nisga'a agreement. There is one area of self-government, I guess, that I would like to have clarified. It is something along the following lines: when one takes a look at the notion of self-government, and follows through.... I'm again referring to the document that was released last week with regard to the Nisga'a land claim issue. First of all, in terms of access, it's very clear -- and this is expressed on page 3 -- that British Columbia will require that non-Nisga'a have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes. That really demands some clarification, because it implies that even on public lands the Nisga'a have some sort of control -- and they must obviously have some sort of control, in order to spell out that non-Nisga'a must have some sort of reasonable access, and that what is reasonable can actually be defined by the Nisga'a. That's one factor.
The second factor concerns subsurface resources. It says here: "British Columbia will stand by its proposal that Nisga'a will own all subsurface resources on Nisga'a lands, including oil, gas and precious metals." I guess the key word here is "own," and this needs to be clarified, because certainly every Canadian operates under the assumption, whether they know it or not.... Every intelligent Canadian who has property knows that ultimately the property is owned, if you like, by the Crown; you essentially have property by the good graces of the Crown. I'm wondering whether the term "ownership," as applied here, is still subservient to the Crown, or whether ownership means exclusive or equivalent to Crown land.
The third factor involves taxation, and it says here: "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." Actually, I want to explore taxation in another context later, but with the way this reads, again, it needs some clarification here. It suggests that the Nisga'a government authority has some exclusive authority. If you put all this together with some other features of self-government, such as self-government which can define whether in fact there is exclusive.... Well, there is an exclusive clause. In other words, does the Nisga'a government authority have the authority to define who is excluded or who is included? Self-government has a land base. I think it's very fair to say that any time you're talking about self-government, it has to have a land base, with certain kinds of boundaries and all the rest of it. Then add to that this notion....
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast referred to the March '94 agreement, but I've even seen since then a reference made by the Nisga'a to the concept of dual citizenship. In one way I understand what it means -- that I am a member of the Nisga'a and I am a Canadian. But with another kind of connotation it might suggest something else: that it is a dual citizenship like that of people who claim -- and I would say a very small proportion of Canadians, really, fall into this category -- that they are dual citizens of the United States of America and Canada. Incidentally, I think that's a very small percentage, contrary to conventional wisdom. But that's what it could connote.
I guess, then, what this suggests is that while the minister has made it very clear this is not about sovereignty and this is not about separate nations, nonetheless there is an impression out there that the Nisga'a nations are moving towards defining themselves as citizens. They have a certain kind of citizenship; they negotiate on some sort of nation-to-nation basis and all the rest of it. So something needs to be really elaborated on here, really clarified: one, that the Crown still essentially owns the land, so to speak, and that any form of self-government or taxation concessions or whatever by the federal government assumes not only that the Charter prevails but that the Crown prevails. So I think what we need is some sort of clarification on that, and I'd appreciate it if the minister could elaborate.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member covered a number of topics; I was writing notes and trying to keep up with it. But I'll comment, actually, on three of the issues that were raised.
The first one is access. British Columbia will require that non-Nisga'a have reasonable access on Nisga'a public lands for hunting, fishing and other recreational purposes. We will negotiate a process for regulation of recreational access which is responsive to Nisga'a interests and to the unique attributes of Nisga'a lands -- for example, cultural sites, sensitive habitat and villages.
[4:45]
With regard to the point that the hon. member was making about wildlife, I think that there was a mistaken assumption there. Any considerations with regard to wildlife that would give any rights to the Nisga'a wouldn't be based on a negotiation.
There are two points I want to make with regard to the subsurface rights on mining. First of all, let's keep in mind that we are talking about a very small portion of the area that the first nation refers to as its traditional territory. So we're talking about a very confined area. The second thing is that off Nisga'a lands -- that is, off that very confined area -- they would not have any subsurface rights. In some treaties, in some negotiations, there's an argument that there would be a sharing in that instance. We believe that what we have proposed is in the best interests of the province in that it gives a clarity of definition and it protects those lands which are the vast majority of the lands in question as being rights that would belong to all the citizens of British Columbia.
With regard to tax, the province is prepared to negotiate an arrangement to delegate tax powers and/or tax room in respect of the taxation of non-Nisga'a occupiers of real property on Nisga'a lands, and to enter into this arrangement concurrent with the signing of a treaty. The province is prepared to negotiate an arrangement to delegate tax powers and/or tax room with respect to retail sales tax, subject to satisfactory revenue-sharing agreements, tax-rate and tax-base restrictions, administrative arrangements and non-discrimination provisions. So I think what we are talking about here is based on the principles of fairness and equity and a new relationship.
A. Warnke: Well, I suppose in terms of taxation we'll take this up at another time and explore that a little further. But as it applies to this document, I guess what I'm really focusing in on is the fact that this power of.... Essentially, there might be this transfer of legislative authority to tax and, indeed, set up a government structure. I'm not sure just yet -- and perhaps this needs to be clarified or elaborated on -- what form it will take. Is the minister confident that this will still be subordinate, within section 92 of the Constitution Act of 1867, to the provincial government? It's much along the lines of what the
[ Page 14209 ]
member for Prince George-Omineca put forward. What does the minister envisage at the end of the process as to what kind of government structure will be in place, what kind of taxation powers it will have and whether it will still be under provincial jurisdiction? Could the minister just clarify that?
[B. Copping in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: First nations governments will be subordinate within the context of the Canadian constitution, but we will negotiate arrangements whereby they will take up some tax room and some issues where those matters would be duly negotiated where the interests of British Columbians are represented.
I think the hon. Minister of Skills, Training and Labour would like to enter the debate, and for this I'm very grateful because I'm looking forward to his comments and also because it gives me an opportunity to look after my personal needs.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate, and I appreciate the patience, I hope, of the members opposite, in that the normal role of members of the government is not to take the time of members of the opposition to question the minister in estimates. But this issue of land claims is one that is obviously of some importance to me not only as the representative of the North Coast constituency, a constituency that may have the highest per capita number of people of aboriginal ancestry in the province -- I think, in fact that it has -- but also as a British Columbian, someone who was born in this province, who has led a very good life in this province, thanks to the resources and, I would argue....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: And I would agree with the lone member from the Social Credit caucus who claims that, in fact, we've had good government over the last three and a half years. Who am I to argue? Who am I to argue with that perceptive observation?
But this topic, this issue of land claims is, in my view, arguably the most important issue in this province. It's one that there has been a great deal of discussion about -- some, unfortunately, that has gone to the extreme.
I try not to get personal in my remarks, although I do enjoy a good, vigorous debate. But I must say that I am extremely disappointed in the role that some of the federal members who represent British Columbia are playing on an issue that is of such importance, and that demands, to the degree that it's possible, a reasoned and rational debate. When I say that, it's not to suggest that everybody should agree. In fact, there are many points where there may be departure of good-thinking or right-thinking British Columbians, and that's fair. I don't quarrel with that, but I do quarrel with extremism.
I want to say that I don't stand here and argue, if you like, from a position of guilt. I don't feel any guilt about what has happened in the past, but I do feel that British Columbians need to face this issue squarely. As we finally get close to that point -- we're finally getting to the cusp of the issue -- I really am disappointed in those who argue that we simply go back, turn our heads, turn the clock back and bury our heads in the sand, and who would try....
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not accusing members on the opposite side, and I don't want anybody to think that I am. I have cited one individual, and I'll cite him again. That's the MP for Skeena, Mr. Mike Scott, who is presumably one of a number of critics designated by the federal Reform Party. I want to also say that -- and I guess this falls into the realm of politics -- presumably when things happen on the federal side of the NDP caucus, members over there like to say that we're part of it. We do the same. I realize there are differences of opinion within political parties. I'll single out Mr. Scott -- and he can handle himself, I'm sure -- for being that type of fearmonger.
I want to retrace.... Since I've been in politics I have dealt with this issue as the MLA, and I place considerable importance on it. I've gone back and done some reading. I am not a student of history, but I have read enough to know that there are a few salient facts that must preclude any debate. Number one, there has never been, with very few minor exceptions, treaty-making in this province. In every other province, treaties were made going back well over 100 years. It never happened in B.C., so we're engaged in this modern treaty-making.
There are comments that suggest, I think, unfortunately, that we should not do things based on race. With respect to the fishery and other issues we hear that by treaty-making, somehow there's an element that is racist because we are dealing only with one particular group, and that's aboriginal people in the province. I sat at a meeting of some people in the fishing community yesterday that.... I think we need to understand our history.
In the time devoted to the discussion on VE-Day and the importance that we as British Columbians place -- and myself, certainly, as someone who was born before it was over and whose father took part in that conflict.... My colleague from Cariboo North pointed out that.... I know many of these people in my hometown of Prince Rupert who participated in that conflict and came home to a province where they could not vote. That, my friends, was racism. They came home to a province where they could not, like other workingmen -- and I say working men; people I've grown up with all my life in the forest industry -- go down to the local bar and have a glass of beer, because they were native Indians. Because of things that happened in the past, in many instances people were denied, as we settled this land of ours -- particularly the prairie provinces at a time when the federal government, in terms of trying to encourage settlement, made Crown grants available to settlers and had a law that prohibited native people from buying land.... They couldn't go out and buy land like everyone else. The trade-off was: "We will set aside some lands for you regardless of your population base. Here are the reserves; go on those reserves. Don't worry; we will take care of you." Thus was set in motion a history of the worst kind of paternalism. Now we come to this time in our history when we have decided to face up to it.
I want to give some credit to the previous Social Credit administration for being the first government in British Columbia -- and I think we in the opposition in those days played a role by pushing the issue -- that said: "Yes, we do have an obligation to be a party to these negotiations." They proceeded to enter into an agreement to negotiate, along with the federal government and the Nisga'a, the Nisga'a land
[ Page 14210 ]
claim. In the process of doing that, they signed an agreement that was, in fact, a secrecy clause. I don't think we quarrelled with it at the time.
I may quarrel now with the current leader of the Reform Party who signed the agreement and is now trying to suggest that that's not really what he meant. When you make those kinds of decisions in politics, you should stand up for them; I don't think you should try to find a way to skirt around the fact that you've made a decision. Why not stand up and say: "Yes, I made that decision, and I thought it was the right decision at the time. Let's get on with doing this job instead of trying to play politics with the issue"?
I want to say that in arriving at these modern treaties, we need to understand that there is a cost. We would be absolutely foolish to suggest that we could do this and there would be no cost, that it would be painless. I always like to use the analogy.... I think this is true of everything. If you go to a restaurant and have lunch, you can't leave before you pay the bill. Maybe we need to face up to that a little bit more, and be open and out front that there is a cost.
There is a benefit, and the benefit is manifold. In my own area, this is what I say to people. Some people are quite concerned about the impact of land claims and that they may be displaced by claims, but the benefit is one of certainty. It's one of knowing that we have resolved this -- this is the first claim in B.C. -- and we can get on and resolve those other outstanding claims in B.C. The benefit is one of inclusion. Really, it's ending a history of exclusion, and of saying to some citizens of this country: "You are on these reserves; we have an Indian Act that governs activities on these reserves." We are ending an Indian Act that says: "No, we are the guardians of your future; we are the guardians of your property." We are saying to the Nisga'a: "We want you to be full citizens of Canada and full participants in every sense of the word, but with the responsibilities that go with full citizenship."
[5:00]
Although the issues were leaked by some mysterious means through the federal Reform Party.... Who knows? Maybe with the assistance of the federal Liberal government, which seems to have some.... I don't know; it's kind of hard to figure out just where they are these days on the issue of land claims.
Certainty. We are saying to the Nisga'a that the responsibility of full citizenship is that the history of a separate tax regime will end: "You, like every citizen, will be a taxpaying citizen of this province, entitled to all the benefits."
I hope the members appreciate that you don't change 125 years of history in one year. It does take some reasonable amount of transition time to effect those kinds of changes. I speak for my constituents the Nisga'a when I tell you that they desire to become more and more involved in business interests, which they are already heavily involved in in the forest sector. Two or three bands now have logging activities. They're out there logging with other private sector companies, competing for timber, and they're engaged in silvicultural activities and other issues on the fisheries side. Their desire to become those full participants in the northwest corner of our province is very strong indeed. Again, I go back to a theme I started with: it's my concern that it's very, very easy to create fear, to create concern, to sow the seeds of divisiveness; it is very easy. We all know the story about how easy it might be -- you know, the story of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. But it is irresponsible; and it is a challenge for people to try to debate these issues in the manner that I'm talking about.
Surely, all of us as British Columbians, given that history that I briefly talked about, should feel some obligation to approach the issue in that way, knowing that these are difficult issues and that the answers are not that simple -- because we have 125 years of history, and we have patterned some land ownership, and there are commitments that have been made -- and to look at how we can, in the treaty process, create the opportunities that I talked about for the Nisga'a and move on for the great Tsimshian nation -- which occupied this coast, which occupies my constituency from Klemtu all the way up to Lax Kw'alaams, or Port Simpson -- and the Haida.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I really feel a sense of optimism that we're finally getting on with this, and a sense of concern that there are those who, for whatever reason -- I suggest that in many cases it's simply political reasons -- are prepared to be the person who yells "fire" in a crowded theatre. Again, I haven't participated in all of this debate, and I'm not casting aspersions on any of the members opposite in any personal way. There have been statements made here, and I'm sure there may be others; but to the extent possible, I would hope that the debate will ensue in that kind of manner.
As to the fisheries issue, I think that's one that needs some particular attention, because I also have a very strong interest in resource management. People in my constituency, from Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Klemtu and all the way up the coast, have historically depended on the fisheries; our communities depend on the fisheries. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has shown more interest and has taken more action with respect to fisheries and conservation issues than any minister ever in the history of British Columbia.
Because we've always been content to say that it's a federal responsibility and we don't need to take.... Now we're facing, to some degree, those crises in our fishing sector. I am somewhat amazed that where a very modest, minor amount of the fishery is what you might call "aboriginal" under section 35 -- in other words, the right to catch for food and ceremonial purposes, which the courts have decreed takes precedence over other issues except conservation.... A very minor amount of the fishery -- I'd bet about 3 percent to 4 percent -- is being used by some people to suggest that it is only the aboriginal people of British Columbia who are responsible for the fisheries management problems that we have here. To suggest that is, I think, irresponsible. We have some significant....
I'm getting the high sign from the Chair.
C. Serwa: I'm enjoying the speech of the minister, and I'd like to see him conclude his statement.
The Chair: I thank Okanagan West for that intervention.
Hon. D. Miller: Thank you to the hon. member for Okanagan West.
[ Page 14211 ]
To suggest that all of the problems in our fishery.... I want to particularly single out a letter that appeared in the paper a few days ago, by a Mr. Eidsvik, commenting on the cyclical nature of salmon runs in this province. This is, in fact, a low year. Anybody who reads the press will understand that this is a low-cycle year with respect to some stocks -- not all stocks and not all regions; the pink stocks this year look pretty good. Two years ago we had the largest salmon run since 1913. But fish are subject to those kinds of variations in stock levels because of factors that.... Some we control, some we don't. Certainly with respect to habitat here in British Columbia, we do have some control; we now have resources available, and we're putting money into enhancement and restoration of habitat. For the first time, the British Columbia government and Forest Renewal B.C. are putting money into habitat restoration.
I sat down with the DFO's science director on the west coast, John Davis, who ran some charts to illustrate the cyclical nature of that species, particularly the salmon species that go way out into the Atlantic, and are governed by weather patterns and temperature patterns down in South America. We happen to be in a low-cycle year, and to read a letter from a representative of the fishing industry suggesting that the reason we have a low cycle of salmon rests entirely with native Indian people in this province is shockingly ignorant and the height of irresponsibility.
I think all of us here in this chamber would want the debate to be as I have characterized it. Sure, we may have differences; there may be differences over some of the elements in a particular claim. But I would hope that there would be general agreement that, number one, these are issues that need to be negotiated. We can no longer turn our backs; we cannot go back. I would argue that if we had done what we should have done 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, it would have been much easier. But that doesn't mean you shirk the task; it means that you meet the challenge and you get on with it, and that we can have that kind of debate here, at least, in this chamber in British Columbia, recognizing that other parties.... The Social Credit Party finally brought British Columbia to the table. I don't know where the Reform Party is currently. If there's some evasiveness on their part about what their position is -- should we negotiate or not? -- then I think they have an obligation not to go out and yell "fire" in the theatre, but to state what their position is, clearly and up front, so that we can deal with it.
I'll close by saying that this is in many respects the most important issue in this province. Surely all of us in this province want the issue dealt with; we want it settled and we, all of us, want to get on with life in a province that has more promise, in my view, because of our resources, our people and our ability to control our destiny by making the kind of investments we're making in education and in our resources. I want my deep friends who are my constituents, who are part of these nations I've talked about, to be part of what we can all share in this province.
A. Warnke: No doubt about it: when we get closer to putting forth or proposing a treaty and bringing it before the House, I will be waiting for a similar kind of statement from the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour -- and then, I suspect, he will be just as eloquent.
Actually, I have to share at the outset one comment he made about the Hon. Mike Scott. As a matter of fact, last week the CBC television news had a newsclip of me presenting something in the House, with Mike Scott's name underneath. I don't know who was more upset by it; it was either me, about having the name -- or perhaps he was more upset with having a rather rotund figure attached to his frame. But I'll take my presence and I'll keep that. I may be ugly, but at least I can wake up the next morning and not feel insulted by it.
I also was very keen and interested in the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs' last remarks about ensuring from his perspective that whatever government is formed be subordinate to the provincial government. I think that clear statement is absolutely essential, given that there has been some speculation to the contrary, which I've described. When you put a number of the factors that I've mentioned in totality, then one might develop a different impression of what kind of government would be established in the future. I'm somewhat relieved, and I'm sure British Columbians will be relieved, to know that we are still dealing with really two orders of government within a Canadian context, and that something isn't being created that really is undesirable.
I want to follow up just one more point on the document that was released late last week. That's with regard to fiscal arrangements, since we have this opportunity. It says here: "British Columbia anticipates that the treaty will contain the broad principles of fiscal arrangements; the actual funding [arrangements] will be outside the treaty." I'm wondering, on that basis.... We have, at the present, the federal government allocating moneys to the reserves or to the various bands, including the Nisga'a. Obviously the intent is to get rid of the one thing on which all Canadians are in agreement, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike -- the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and all the rest of it.
It implies by that that the federal government is now going to get out of some fiscal arrangement with Nisga'a. I'm just wondering: does the minister anticipate that the provincial government will merely take up where the federal government has left off? Maybe the minister could clarify just what it means in terms of the fiscal arrangements between the provincial government, the federal government if it's appropriate -- but it doesn't sound like it -- and I guess for the time being, we'll say, the Nisga'a territorial government.
Hon. J. Cashore: There will be some fiscal arrangements negotiated to enable the fact that within the treaty, the Nisga'a, for instance, will be providing some direct services within their communities. Some of these arrangements, again, would be in the context of what we referred to earlier in the Sechelt municipal model. I think that we would be looking at some of those kinds of arrangements. Also, I think that when it comes to the question that the hon. member raised about the federal government abandoning the field and the provincial government occupying it -- no, hon. member, that's not what it's about. As a matter of fact, if there's one thing that treaties should not do it is enable federal off-loading.
[5:15]
W. Hurd: I just wanted to explore briefly with the minister the implications of a recent federal court case involving the aboriginal fishery in the province of British Columbia. The
[ Page 14212 ]
minister may be aware that six British Columbia men recently charged with poaching up to $1 million of roe herring were granted an unconditional discharge by the Crown. The matter was dealt with by federal prosecutors, but I think it has overlapping significance for British Columbia. The six men pled guilty to poaching $1 million in herring roe, but were given a conditional discharge on the grounds that they had a right to an aboriginal fishery. It was a ruling by the judge -- a conditional discharge -- which is not appealable by the federal Crown.
I wonder if the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs could advise the committee whether he's aware of the case, which I believe involved the Heiltsuk band, and whether or not he's concerned about the implications of the ruling, particularly from a conservation standpoint. It clearly seems to provide for the ability of the aboriginal fishery, in this case, to plead guilty to a federal charge of poaching and then be granted a conditional discharge.
And just following up on that issue with respect to the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, I'd suggest to the minister -- to both ministers of the Crown -- that when people read this kind of information, when they see the implications of court rulings like this and see the government and the province of British Columbia remain silent, not speaking out on behalf of conservation, as I've suggested they do in this chamber, the public is understandably concerned.
The ministers have suggested that misinformation exists out there, that the public of the province is being led astray by opinion leaders. But in this particular case the individuals involved pled guilty to a charge of poaching, which we assume is in place because of conservation considerations, and yet their lawyer successfully made application to the courts that this represented an aboriginal fishing right. Perhaps I can ask the minister whether he's aware of the ruling, whether he's concerned about it, and whether, as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, he intends to make his position and his government's position known to the federal Minister of Fisheries.
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that the hon. member is commenting on something that has gone through the courts. Am I aware of it? Yes. Am I concerned about it? Yes. Do I intend to do something about it? I have taken it up with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It's an issue that, in fairness -- it was in the news yesterday -- we're doing some investigation with regard to. As a matter of fact, one report that I read didn't use the same wording that the hon. member stated, but actually had the words "right to sell" in it.
Yes, I'm concerned about that, and I need to get some more information, based on inquiries I've already filed. Yes, we're very interested in that. I think that if the judge actually has affirmed what was reported to be the advice of the lawyer to the first nations, then we have to be very much aware of whether or not that has any implications, and whether or not there's anything that we need to address coming out of that. But right now it was a newspaper story that was not all that clear, and we're seeking to find that clarity.
W. Hurd: I'll settle for the assurance from the minister that in fact his ministry is looking into it because of the implications involved and the fact that a charge of poaching was, in essence, stayed by the Crown, or was.... A conditional discharge, I understand, does not allow for an appeal by the Crown. I think that it's important for the minister to familiarize himself with that particular ruling, because as I said earlier, when people in the province -- particularly people concerned about conserving fish stocks as the highest level of priority.... A ruling such as this seems to imply that in fact the aboriginal right to a commercial fishery takes precedence over a charge of poaching, which one would assume exists to protect stocks as a law of conservation. I certainly would welcome some sort of statement from the minister, perhaps even on a future day of estimates in this chamber.
Just shifting the discussion briefly to the whole legal ramifications of the lawsuits that I talked about earlier, where the Ministry of Forests is being taken to court by the Haida in the Queen Charlottes.... I know I explored this briefly with the minister, and he was, I think, willing to answer questions with respect to this case, even though it is pending.
I wonder if the minister could tell us, from a general philosophical standpoint, whether he expects litigation to continue in the province. Is he confident that cases such as the Haida are isolated -- will be isolated? Or is he at all concerned that we might see a decision on the part of some bands in the province to proceed with litigation or with lawsuits against actual ministries of government with respect to decisions that they might make regarding the allocation of resources? I think it's an important question that we didn't have a chance to pursue. Is he worried that there might be an escalation of this type of activity, or is he confident that the Haida may be an isolated case?
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, it has not been determined if this is litigation. It's still under judicial review, so that remains to be seen.
With regard to such questions as: am I worried about various types of actions...? I observe actions of citizens of British Columbia, and sometimes they believe they have a case where they wish to access the court. Sometimes those individuals happen to be aboriginal people representing an interest on behalf of a first nation. I have a great respect for the courts. I would assume that in filing through that system, which is available to all, they have a great respect for the courts too.
With regard to the question of litigation -- which this isn't, at this point -- I've said many times that we prefer negotiation to litigation. That's why we have taken these pioneering steps with regard to working with first nations and the government of Canada in setting up a treaty-making process that will hopefully achieve certainty and definition through negotiation. Under the present circumstances, with the anomalies of the Indian Act, that certainly does not exist.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that there is some unhappiness in the aboriginal community with respect to the creation of a protected area or park in the Indian Arm region, and that the possibility exists again. I would assume it would be the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks that might be the subject of litigation. That's a public statement, of course, made by one of the band chiefs. I again would ask the minister, with respect to the protected areas created by the government, whether he's at all concerned about the possibility that where no treaty or negotiations are imminent and where a band might determine that it's interest has been devalued in
[ Page 14213 ]
some way by an act of either the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, we might see some sort of litigation as a means of preventing the Crown from undertaking an activity that might devalue the asset that's under discussion -- in this case, Crown land. I am sure that the minister will be aware of the statements made about the possibility of a lawsuit in connection with the determination of Indian Arm.
Is the minister taking any sort of proactive role to work with the bands in connection with these determinations or decisions that are made by other ministries to ensure that we don't end up with a forest of litigation? It seems to me that we may have substituted one series of court actions with respect to aboriginal rights with another set which seeks to set aside decisions of the Crown, based on the diminishment of value in connection with treaty negotiations. It seems to me that there's a potential for additional litigation, as we have seen in the case with the Haida and the Ministry of Forests. We might see it in the case of the Indian Arm park that has been recently created. Is there a need for the ministry to take some sort of proactive role in trying to prevent those types of court actions from proceeding, other than what we already have in place?
Hon. J. Cashore: The question is: is there a need for the ministry and the government to take a proactive role? The answer is yes, and it is doing so in a way that has never been seen before in the history of British Columbia. This is the first government in the history of British Columbia that is dealing with the legacy of issues that are touched on as perhaps the tip of the iceberg of the references in the hon. member's comments.
I would point him to the recent case in the Gitksan area -- the Sam Green case -- where, during the time of the previous Social Credit government in 1988, there was an injunction that resulted in the shutting down of forestry in a very significant area of the province. "What was it that resulted, in April of this year, in the lifting of that injunction?" I would ask. The answer is the fact that this government, like no other government, has put policies in place that enabled that injunction to be lifted.
What did we put in place? We put in a treaty negotiation process and an interim measures process consistent with the agreement that we entered into when we set up the B.C. Treaty Commission. Mr. Justice Hunter noted that the government of B.C. had made policies to identify aboriginal rights in its planning processes and to take measures to avoid infringing on those rights. He also referred to the treaty negotiation process that allows for the adoption of interim measures, including comanagement programs, which can be employed to protect priority areas or to increase participation of first nations in decision-making processes. This is a very good example of how this government's policy is working effectively.
I find it very interesting and intriguing that this hon. member from the Liberal benches is asking if we are being proactive. Our proactivity has been affirmed and recognized by the judge. That land is coming back into the use of the province as economic activity because of our policies. Yet the Liberal Party has recently announced that it supports the Reform Party in wanting a moratorium on those very interim measures that enabled that logging to get back into action.
W. Hurd: I detect from the minister's answer that he's not concerned that there is going to be an increase in litigation. I suggest to him that if I was a lawyer working for a band and was at all concerned about the impact of a Crown decision with respect to diminishment of the value of the land -- particularly if it were to go into a protected area and not be subject to timber harvesting, mineral extraction or any other type of benefit -- to my way of thinking, that would represent diminishment of right or of value. It seems to me that it would almost be in the best interest of a band to pursue a course of litigation, at least to ensure that the potential settlement asset wasn't devalued.
I wonder if I can ask the minister whether.... In cases where there would be litigation, where the band would pursue an action against the Crown, can he assure the committee that the legal costs would be entirely the responsibility of the band? Would they receive any sort of benefit or asset under the Treaty Commission process to pursue their aims of court action outside the process? I wonder if the minister could clarify that for the committee at the outset.
[5:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: We won't negotiate and litigate. There is no relationship undertaken by the provincial government that would result in the provincial government paying the costs of litigation in the context of treaty negotiations, as the hon. member puts it. I understand that there may be a federal program -- which I don't know very much about -- that sometimes funds litigation when there's a test case that they seek to achieve a ruling on, but the provincial government is not involved in that.
With regard to the question of litigation, the province is concerned with the cost. The point I made in my earlier comments was that that's why we have taken on these interim measures processes, and that's why we've entered the treaty negotiation process. It's so we could get judgments out of a court that would put that land, such as in the Sam Green case, back into activity where it had formerly been tied up -- where there was no policy in place such as the policy that we put in place. Of course we prefer negotiation to litigation; we prefer to be proactive. Given the work that we are doing in a wide variety of situations, that is exactly what's happening.
W. Hurd: Returning to a previous discussion, I know that the minister has assured the committee that the interim measures agreements do not carry any enforceability in the courts. I appreciate that. He has expressed the view that they are more likely to avoid litigation than enhance it, and I understand that. But there are cases where any band, having failed to dissuade the government or a ministry on its course of action, and feeling in its heart that the spirit of the interim measures agreement was not being committed to, would, under those circumstances, pursue some sort of action, I'm sure. I think the question of whether they would be responsible for the legal costs and any court costs is an important issue.
I'm just seeking some assurance from the minister that if a band were to decide that the Crown was not honouring the spirit of the interim measures agreement, and an asset that might potentially be the subject of negotiation within the treaty process was being devalued by an action of the Crown, would they, if they chose to pursue litigation, be responsible for the costs and/or the legal costs in connection with pursu-
[ Page 14214 ]
ing such an action? If the answer to that question is no, then I would really seriously question why litigation wouldn't be a desirable option -- if for no other reason than to tie up the asset in some sort of court action which might take some years to resolve.
Hon. J. Cashore: I've made it very, very clear that the province would not pay for the court action, if there was one. I think the hon. member is also aware that the only possible exception is where the court orders costs. Of course, if the court makes an order, that's a different matter.
I just want to say that in terms of the government's policy to seek to negotiate rather than litigate, it is costly to litigate complex matters, especially with regard to the aboriginal file. For example, the Delgamuukw case, has so far cost the province $7.9 million in fees for legal services, and the case has yet to go before the Supreme Court of Canada.
W. Hartley: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
W. Hartley: On your behalf, hon. Chair, I would like to introduce some senior citizens who are visiting the precincts today from Eastmont Baptist Church in East Wenatchee, Washington, United States. Would members please welcome them.
L. Fox: I am pleased to get back into the debate. I want to go back to the self-governance issue, where I left off some number of questions and speakers ago.
As I understood the minister, the authorities that will be achieved under this would be something more than a municipality and something less than a provincial status. Because of the things that he said it wasn't and of the things he said it could be, there were significant opportunities for authority in a lot more areas than in a municipal government. So I would suspect it would be somewhere in between that.
It's pretty clear in the Delgamuukw case -- certainly in the Court of Appeal's view -- that there were no inherent rights to self-government. I think there was a clear message from the Charlottetown accord referendum and from the native people voting on that referendum. As I recall, there were something like only two bands in the province that supported the Charlottetown accord. Why does this government pursue this direction and reject the Court of Appeal view on this matter?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're not negotiating the inherent right to self-government. We have recognized it politically. We have recognized it, that's true, and we're not ashamed of that. We say it openly and honestly. But what we are negotiating are the definitions of self-government in the treaty site-specific context. So that is what we're doing.
With regard to the hon. member's earlier characterization with regard to the statement he made using the analogy of municipal government, I think that's very likely the way it could turn out. It's a little bit of both.
L. Fox: That would lead me to the question of pecking order. Would the native order or territory -- I'm not sure how they're going to be classified...? Would they then report, similar to a municipality, through the province to the feds, or would they be directly responsible to the feds? What would happen with respect to that?
Hon. J. Cashore: There would be some fisheries powers with regard to the federal government in that they would be reporting to the feds; in some others they would be reporting to the provincial government. Also, with regard to the nature of their responsibility for the governance of themselves, it could be similar to the Sechelt model, where we actually have a relationship there with the UBCM.
L. Fox: Just a few other questions along this line. In and of the items that the minister suggested they could have some authority over were health, education and some social issues. Am I then to understand that those issues would be funded by the federal government to these new organizations, or would the minister see those funds flowing through the province down to that level, for issues such as health, education and social services? How would he envision that happening?
Hon. J. Cashore: It would be primarily a result of negotiation, but what I anticipate is that, given our position on federal off-loading, any funds coming through the federal government would be the primary source of funds coming to the first nations to administer these services. Any provincial funds would be based on the provincial relationship that had been negotiated. Again, I think we have to recognize the historical federal responsibility in these issues, and that's what we'll be standing up for in negotiations.
I do want the member to also hear in the context of his question the position which we have put forward that we want to see the section 87 tax exemption removed. Basically, people would be on the same taxation system, paying the same taxes for the services they receive. While there would be funds coming through from Ottawa or, in some cases, through our own provincial government, they would be funds which would be also covered in the sense that they are for other citizens of Canada and British Columbia -- through the fact that they would be participating in the taxation system.
With that, hon. Chair, I know there are further issues that hon. members want to discuss, and I look forward to that. But at this time I'd like 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.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.
[ Page 14215 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; J. Pullinger in the chair.
The committee met at 2:43 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY, MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)
On vote 26: minister's office, $343,000 (continued).
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions with respect to the minister's involvement in the Columbia River downstream benefits issue, the creation of the Columbia Basin Trust and the extent to which the ministry supports that work with expenditures from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
I wonder if the minister could first advise us, perhaps in dollar figures or in the commitment of resources from the ministry, of exactly what role the ministry has played in the negotiations and the calculation of costs and benefits of the renovations to the Keenleyside, Waneta and Brilliant dams. Or, in terms of planning costs, consulting or anything else, is that entire project consigned within the Ministry of Employment and Investment?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure whether you wanted to know who was involved in the negotiation of the downstream benefit entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty. If you're talking about that, that is a process this ministry led. We have been central to those negotiations.
[2:45]
Those negotiations are one set. Another set of what I guess you could call negotiations -- certainly there were talks, discussions and public processes that went on between government and the residents of the Columbia Basin -- was another process. In that situation, my ministry frequently sent advisers to the meetings because energy policy is part of our mandate. Certainly we are well aware of what's going on in energy in the province.
However, when it comes to determining what is connected to B.C. Hydro, that is part of the Crown corporations secretariat, which is under the Minister of Employment and Investment. I think that answers most of what you asked me. I'll let you ask again if I've missed some of it.
W. Hurd: I'm somewhat confused about the relationship between the Ministry of Employment and Investment and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources with respect to this project. It is my understanding the now defunct Energy Commission was quite involved in analyzing the costs and benefits of investment in dam projects in the Columbia Basin. Indeed, Michael Margolick and Associates, consultants in the energy field, conducted a benefit and cost analysis of energy project investment in the Columbia Basin, which was submitted to the Energy Council some time in 1993 or 1994. Obviously there was a role for the ministry; there appeared to be a role through the Energy Council in analyzing the costs and benefits of the projects that are now being proposed for the Kootenays.
My question is this: is the minister aware of the study by Michael Margolick and Associates? Was it referred to by the Energy Council? Was it referred in any way to the ministry for analysis or comment? Perhaps I could ask that question first. It invites a series of follow-up questions after we get a response.
Hon. A. Edwards: It might be helpful to remember that the Minister of Employment and Investment is responsible for Crown corporations. B.C. Hydro and the Columbia Power Corporation are Crown corporations and are involved in projects in the Columbia Basin.
The Energy Council did a lot of work to be on top of what is happening in energy in the province. In the course of putting together a proposal for an energy strategy for B.C., they hired Michael Margolick Associates to do a study. I believe that is the study you are talking about. That report was done for the Energy Council and was used by the Energy Council in putting together their view of what was happening in B.C. and what we should do in the future to put together a full energy strategy.
W. Hurd: One would assume that if the Columbia Basin Trust elects to participate in the renovation project of the three dams in the Kootenays -- the Waneta, Brilliant and Keenleyside dams -- they would do so through some sort of additional corporate entity of some description. I guess the most obvious question I would ask is: can the minister advise us if that new corporate entity would obviously be regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission or by her ministry in some way? Can she perhaps describe the relationship between this new entity -- or even the Columbia Basin Trust as it is currently constituted, for that matter -- and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources? What type of role would the ministry play as that project evolves, as the agreement may or may not be signed by the Columbia Basin Trust and as the dams are renovated and brought into production?
Hon. A. Edwards: As you are aware, the government instrument by which we control those three dam projects are all under the Minister of Employment and Investment, because he is in charge of Crown corporations, both the Columbia Power Corporation and B.C. Hydro. If they decided to propose an energy project in B.C., those corporations and the Columbia Basin Trust would have to go through the normal procedures -- that is, through the Utilities Commission and come through the ministry.
W. Hurd: That's helpful information from the minister. I would assume then that even if the Columbia Basin Trust agrees to sign an agreement with the Ministry of Employment and Investment, there would have to be an application made to the B.C. Utilities Commission, which would then be reviewed based on its merits. I think that is useful, because I assume that would provide the public with the opportunity to come forward to express its views on some of the environmental aspects of the project, the relative need for the energy and the cost of the project.
I wonder if I can return to some of the comments made in the Margolick study about the benefits and costs of energy project investment in the Columbia Basin. I assume the minis-
[ Page 14216 ]
ter has had an opportunity to review the report. My impression is that the report takes a very negative view of the costs and benefits of hydroelectric projects, particularly with respect to the three proposed dams. I wonder if the minister could take a moment to outline to the committee whether she's reviewed the Margolick study in detail and whether she is satisfied that it is an accurate reflection of the costs and benefits of project investment in the Columbia Basin, particularly with respect to the three proposed dams.
Hon. A. Edwards: Let me go back a minute and clarify. I am not sure I made the regulatory process clear for the member, because the actual project would be regulated under the energy project review process, whereas the contracts for the power, if they were bought by B.C. Hydro or West Kootenay Power and Light Co., would be regulated by the B.C. Utilities Commission. They would have to be approved by the Utilities Commission under the regulatory authority for the project, which is the ministry itself.
As to the Margolick report, it says, interestingly enough, that big dam projects are not the most efficient way to create jobs. I think that is the issue you were addressing. Is that the point you were trying to make?
W. Hurd: Well, the minister's response invites a couple of questions. I just want to back up for a minute to review the role of the BCUC. I understood from the minister's initial response that in fact the entire project would be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission with respect to its viability, its economic and social impacts and whether it should be approved. In the second answer, I thought I heard the minister suggesting that in fact only the sale or the contracts for energy would be reviewable by the BCUC. Before we move back to the Margolick study, I wonder if the minister could clarify that for the committee.
Hon. A. Edwards: I would be pleased to do that. I was trying to get the details correct. In fact, the ministry does the regulatory signing-off. But one of the options for the minister is to refer it to the Utilities Commission for review before that signature comes. It is the ministry that holds the authority to regulate the project. These kinds of cases are frequently referred to the Utilities Commission for review. The contracts, at any rate, have to be approved by the Utilities Commission.
W. Hurd: That invites the question, then, since the ministry does have regulatory approval, where there is some public debate about the costs and benefits of the three dams and whether or not that type of hydroelectric project will indeed be competitive in the energy markets or environments of the future, of whether the minister would see any merit in referring it to the B.C. Utilities Commission for a thorough review, much as the BCUC was called upon to review the Kemano completion project. When there is such a massive investment on behalf of not only the taxpayers of the province but also the people of the Kootenays, through the return the downstream benefits would she see merit in referring the project in its entirety to the BCUC for a thorough review of all cost benefits, environmental issues, etc.?
Hon. A. Edwards: I have to clarify another thing. I hope the member knows there are three projects here. So when we talk about the whole project, I assume you mean either the Keenleyside project or another proposal that might come forward. A proposal has come forward to the ministry. It was submitted about six weeks ago to the ministry for the Keenleyside part of the proposed activity. That is now being reviewed thoroughly. There is no question that any project that is proposed will be thoroughly reviewed, as any project is, in the regulatory process, which involves a lot of review by the ministry. It may involve the Utilities Commission as well at the early stages or it may simply involve the Utilities Commission for contracts. But whatever happens, whether or not the new environmental assessment process is involved, it will be reviewed fully for social, economic and environmental aspects of the project as it's proposed.
W. Hurd: I didn't hear a commitment from the minister that the BCUC would necessarily be involved. Are we talking about some sort of more informal process or would it be an internal review by the ministry? Would it be a review, the nature of which was conducted by Peat Marwick for the Ministry of Employment and Investment?
Given the importance of this project to the region that the minister represents and the fact that the Columbia Basin accord has been signed, I wonder if she could advise the committee as to what type of review we would now be looking at. Of course, we did explore that during the actual debate on the bill, and we determined that in fact it is not a legal agreement. But obviously it's an accord of some kind, which was signed by the minister in her capacity as an MLA, I assume, rather than as a minister. Given the fact that the agreement has been signed and the project for the Keenleyside has been forwarded to the ministry, can she advise us as to what type of formal review process will be conducted during the next year?
The reason I ask those questions is that, as the minister has indicated, the Margolick study, which we've talked about briefly, really raises some serious questions about the viability of the project, the employment statistics that flow from large dam renovations and the environmental costs. There were a series of major issues identified in that consultant's study, which, I guess, the ministry paid for through the Energy Council. So I wonder if the minister could suggest to us whether the BCUC should or can be involved. If it should not or cannot be involved, what other substitute review process is her ministry contemplating?
Hon. A. Edwards: First, as you probably know, the Energy Council was funded under a $10 vote and paid for by a levy, so ministry money did not pay for the Margolick report. That's a detail I thought we should deal with up front.
[3:00]
Basically, you're trying to find out what we're likely to do. On occasion, the ministry does the regulatory work for an energy project if it's a small and fairly straightforward project and if there's been a recent review and there's not a major change or something like that. But as far as I know -- and this involves the advice that I'm getting -- any project of any size, significance or complexity is reviewed in great detail. It nearly always goes to the Utilities Commission. These kinds of projects might well go through the environmental assessment process. As you know, if the ministry does the work, the
[ Page 14217 ]
minister signs an approval or a refusal. You could go either way at that point. If it's referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission, then the recommendations of the commission come back and have to go to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That's the kind of approval that is needed.
I don't think there is anyone involved in this whole process who doesn't want to be very sure that a project that is going ahead will be viable. That's part of what the review and regulation does. It gets the detail out where people can discuss it, make their points and make sure that if a project is proposed and goes ahead, it will be a successful project in the sense that it will be technically efficient, socially acceptable and environmentally benign, and that all of the various standards that we put together will be met.
W. Hurd: Let me quote to the minister a couple of passages from the Margolick study, which reviewed the costs and benefits of investment in the Columbia Basin. The Margolick study points out that:
"...provincial policy now prevents B.C. Hydro from acquiring electricity for ratepayers unless Hydro needs it specifically to serve them. On this basis, B.C. Hydro does not now need power from new projects in the region. Provincial policy also requires B.C. Hydro to acquire electricity for ratepayers at the least social cost, which may or may not apply to specific projects in the Columbia Basin. Under a change in policy, the provincial government could require that project costs and equity returns be recovered from ratepayers."
That's what Mr. Margolick, a consultant employed by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, has suggested: "Return recovered from ratepayers, even if the electricity were not needed to serve them, is not least cost." In other words, it is not the lowest-priced electricity that could be generated.
In light of the policy assessment that B.C. Hydro could recover the costs from ratepayers for this project -- if it isn't economically viable -- surely that would invite the involvement of the B.C. Utilities Commission to ensure that the power being generated is not being recovered out of the taxpayers or ratepayers in the province.
Surely the minister can agree that her own consultant has identified the possibility that Hydro may recover the costs of the project from ratepayers. I can't think of a better proposal for the B.C. Utilities Commission to deal with, because that's their mandate: to review rates on behalf of all the ratepayers in the province. I know that when the previous president and chairman of the Energy Council, Mr. Gathercole, appeared before the B.C. Utilities Commission, he was a strident proponent of the importance of protecting consumers in the province.
I wonder how the minister resolves the kind of discrepancy, where a consultant hired by her ministry is recommending the possibility that the dam costs be recovered from ratepayers and the fact that she is saying it may or may not go to the B.C. Utilities Commission. I really have trouble understanding that contradiction.
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure why you're worried about the Utilities Commission. I have said that if it's a major complex project, it is very likely to go to the Utilities Commission, but I'm not making my decision now. I haven't got advice back since the application came in. I haven't made that decision, and I'm not telling you right now that that is what my decision will be. A complex project could and very likely would go to the Utilities Commission. However, we have the Environmental Assessment Act as well, and if that process is in place, then the project will go to the environmental impact assessment authority rather than to the Utilities Commission. That is the project itself.
If you are talking about protection for the consumer, there is lots of protection for the consumer. The contracts themselves would have to be approved by the Utilities Commission. The function of the Utilities Commission is to protect the consumer and assure that the company is into reasonable contracts that are going to protect the consumer and not charge the consumer for things that she or he doesn't get.
Whether or not the projects will go ahead is not certain, and I have said that very clearly. Despite the fact that everybody is excited by the prospects, the Columbia Basin Trust board has to decide whether or not any project they have the opportunity to go ahead with is one they want to go ahead with. They have not yet been named, so of course they can't have made their decision. I would be very disappointed in the members of the trust if they didn't take an extremely close look at a project in which they are going to invest significant amounts of money and expect to have a significant return.
Mr. Margolick has done what a lot of consultants do, and that is point out the good points and the bad points. That's what I would hire a consultant to do. I don't want to get a consultant's report that tells me everything is all one way or that it's different than they see it. I want some real, honest advice, and I believe that Mr. Margolick has given that advice. I think everybody has access to that -- everybody involved, certainly. Probably most of them already know the Margolick report; it's available to those of them who don't.
I would agree with you that Mr. Gathercole was a very efficient and passionate advocate for the consumer when he worked for the consumer advocacy association. He remained so as he worked for the Energy Council, but he took a broader view, looked at the whole issue and how the whole issue served the public good.
That is our continuing interest. I think we have the processes to deal with the issues that concern the member. He always has access to the process. It will be reviewed under the same regulatory structure as other projects in the province. Any project that wants to have approval would go through this same sort of process, and so will the projects that are proposed for the Columbia Basin.
One thing: a project has to have a market before it gets its renewal. In the proposal, it's quite possible that West Kootenay Power would want to buy the electricity that would be generated by Keenleyside, Waneta and/or Brilliant.
W. Hurd: I thank the minister for that clarification. I wonder if the minister could tell us what she recommends the Columbia Basin Trust should do. The fact is that there are two studies that, as the minister has indicated, raise serious concerns as well as address some potential positives of being involved in the two projects.
Given the fact that the minister is apparently not necessarily committed to referring the projects to the Utilities Commission other than to recommend some review process that may or may not be done in the future, would the minister recommend that the trust hire its own experts to analyze the three projects before it decides to get involved? Certainly there
[ Page 14218 ]
is enough ammunition in both the Peat Marwick Thorne study, which was done for the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and the Margolick study to suggest that there are serious questions with respect to the viability of these projects.
Getting back to the role of the trust and its participation in these three projects, as a representative for that region, in addition to being the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, would she recommend that they take an independent role in hiring their own experts to analyze the costs and the benefits of these projects, or should they be expected to rely on the resources of both the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Ministry of Employment and Investment?
Hon. A. Edwards: I remind you, before I answer, that I am the minister who may be responsible for shepherding through an application. So I am keeping my mind open on these projects. I want to clarify that for you first. I am not putting myself in the position of being an advocate for any particular project.
I have been previously asked about what the Columbia Basin Trust board should do. I think they should make very clear, before they make any decisions, that they have good information. The information we have in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and in the Ministry of Employment and Investment is good information. There is other information out there, and there may be some other information gaps that the trust identifies.
They will have to make that decision. It is a decision that is very complex. It's not a matter of saying they should do A, B and C. The application has just come in. We are reviewing that application within the ministry; it is likely to be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission or to the environmental assessment process, and there's a lot of work to be done. We don't even have the Columbia Basin Trust board in place to decide whether they want to go ahead with it. So I would suggest there are a lot of things there. The best thing to do is look at what the structure is for regulating these things and what any particular body has to win or lose from a singular project. Each one them has to do their due diligence.
W. Hurd: I must confess I am more confused by the answer than ever. The minister has suggested that she is not an advocate of the project, and should not be -- given her regulatory position -- yet she is one of the MLAs who signed the Columbia Basin accord, which clearly spells out the rights and responsibilities of both the province and the Columbia Basin Trust, in terms of their involvement in the three dams.
Is the minister saying she is divorcing her role as the Energy minister from the Columbia Basin accord, which was signed by her on behalf of the province of British Columbia and by the Premier? I wonder if the minister could take an opportunity to clarify the role that she has as the minister and the role that she had in signing the Columbia Basin accord, which specifically ties the return of downstream benefits to a specific project -- namely, the investment in the Waneta, Keenleyside and Brilliant dams.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's been clear from the beginning. Every time the Premier has been on the platform at these things, he has made it clear that the proposals and projects, which are the basis for the expectations and the accord that was signed, would have to go through the regulatory process of the province.
I think there are a lot of good energy proposals in this province. There are good ones in the Columbia Basin. There are good ones made for thermogeneration by natural gas, wood waste and so on all over the province. I think they are very good projects, but I have not yet had applications to know what the market and that sort of thing is. Ultimately, I'm going to be involved in signing off those projects, so I'm not an advocate for any of them.
I think there are a lot of good proposals; I think the proposals here look like good proposals. The opportunity to be involved in those proposals, if they go ahead, if they make sense, if the trust decides that they would like to go ahead, if government has an agreement and if the trust decides that they would go ahead.... Sure, that's fine. But they will have to go through the process in the same way as any other application or applicant does.
W. Hurd: I'm holding a copy of the March 19, 1995, news release from the office of the Premier, which hails the signing of the Columbia Basin accord by both the Premier and Josh Smienk, chair of the Columbia River Treaty Committee. The memorandum of understanding, which is between Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia and the Columbia River Treaty Committee Inc., is signed by the Premier and members of the Columbia River Treaty committee. It's also signed by the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
[3:15]
Clearly the minister is on the press release and is listed as being a proponent -- maybe not a proponent, but certainly a strong spokesperson for the project. To me, that would suggest a higher degree of likelihood that the minister would want to refer this matter to the B.C. Utilities Commission, given her advocacy role in the formation of the Columbia River Treaty Committee Inc. and the Columbia Basin accord, and the fact that these three projects will now have to be carefully scrutinized by her ministry. Given her involvement in promoting the projects in the region -- I assume that's what has happened -- I wonder if she is at all concerned that there's a need here to divorce the ministry from the regulatory process to ensure that not only the consumers of B.C. Hydro but also the people in the region have a forum in which the project can be assessed, based on an independence that doesn't appear to be there now with respect to the Columbia Basin accord.
As I look through the memorandum of understanding, I see specific reference to the dams:
"The province and the trust will invest a total of $500 million over ten years to construct three hydroelectric projects in existing structures in the lower Columbia. The installation of generating turbines in the Keenleyside storage dam, expansion of the Waneta hydro station, expansion of the Brilliant hydro station...."
In view of the fact that this Columbia Basin accord is specific about the types of assets that will be invested in it, and given the fact that the ministry will in some way be regulating or assessing the viability of the projects, upon reflection, does she express any reservations about having signed this agreement as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources?
[ Page 14219 ]
Hon. A. Edwards: What I understand the member to say is that as minister I shouldn't be signing an agreement which says that something may happen. I would reject that very strongly. The agreement is an agreement to look at possibilities, and the possibilities are very clearly laid out. It would be silly if you didn't lay them out, so they're very clearly laid out. There are three projects that the government is able to talk about being involved with the Columbia Basin Trust. The Columbia Basin Trust is clearly a legislated trust that has certain requirements. If you're talking about a forum by which the people of the region have an opportunity to talk, they have that forum in the trust. They have it in the public process that will continue to be part of the trust activities -- by legislation and also by intent, I believe, and by the preference of the people in my region.
So you ask whether I can remove myself from the regulatory process. No, that will not happen, because the ministry and this minister is central to the regulatory process. What will happen is that the project will be developed and will come through the process the same as any other project does.
W. Hurd: The accompanying press release suggests that the Columbia Basin accord, which is specifically tied to the three dam projects, will:
"...mark the beginning of an end to the disruption and the despair that the Kootenay region has endured as a result of the Columbia River Treaty. Having unjustly borne the brunt of the treaty, the region can now move ahead to a sustainable stable future of opportunity and growth."
That's what is suggested by the press release accompanying the agreement the minister has signed. When we return to the Peat Marwick report, which was conducted by Peat Marwick for the Minister of Employment and Investment with respect to this project, it suggests that in the early stages of the project, cash flow may be nonexistent or low and may be insufficient to pay interest charges. Which is it? The people of the region have reason to ask that question. Is it going to be the move ahead to a sustainable and stable future, or is it going to be a project that will have a nonexistent cash flow? What are the facts of the matter?
If the minister, as the regulatory minister, had any doubts about that, why would she sign an agreement that is specific to the three dams? In other words, the Columbia Basin accord leaves no room for misunderstanding. In the Kootenays, these dams are it. The Margolick study -- and, to a greater extent, the Peat Marwick study -- clearly cast serious doubts that there is any sustainable future involved at all. I wonder if the minister could clarify that discrepancy.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's interesting that the member suggests a nonexistent cash flow in the early years is mutually exclusive from sustainability in the long term. I don't believe that's necessarily so. That is not a decision I will make, however, because it will be made by the Columbia Basin Trust board. I would recommend that they take into account all the advice they can get, and that they deal with the issue by looking at the probabilities and possibilities before making a decision. They are going to be representing the people in the region, and they are going to be making the decision as to whether they choose to go ahead with these projects. If they think that it's not going to be a good idea, I would certainly recommend that they decide not to proceed with the projects.
I don't think that there's any.... It would be foolish to suppose, because we have decided that we can look into the possibilities of going ahead with three named projects, that all of a sudden the weight of the world depends on whether they happen. They have the opportunity to happen, and the accord says they have the opportunity to happen. The people who are involved should certainly be very careful about whether they spend amounts of money; those amounts of money are being spent for a broad general population, and they have to look to the public good. I would recommend that they do so.
W. Hurd: The Peat Marwick report and the Margolick report raise serious reservations about the project, and the Margolick report even recognizes that the costs of the project could be borne by the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro through a change in energy policy by the province. That's one of the recommendations suggested. Under a change in policy, the provincial government could require that project costs and equity return be recovered from ratepayers.
In view of the fact that that's the recommendation of a consultant to her ministry, can the minister advise the committee whether there's any way that the ratepayers of British Columbia and the people of the region could exercise some sort of direct democracy in this case? Could they petition the Utilities Commission to hold a hearing, since we can't get that commitment out of the minister?
They could petition the B.C. Utilities Commission to hold a hearing in which these issues can be properly addressed in a proper form by an independent commission, so we know how much we're paying and how much the customers at B.C. Hydro may be forced to subsidize the project in the earlier years. As I've indicated, Peat Marwick Thorne has suggested in its review that the amount of the money for the project may be insufficient to pay interest costs, and additional borrowing would be necessary to meet full interest obligations. In light of these serious concerns.... What I sense is a lack of commitment by the minister because of the agreement that she's already signed.
"Opportunities and development will be generated throughout the basin from Valemount to Sparwood to Trail," said the Energy minister. "We're making sure that all our eggs won't be put in one basket. I couldn't be prouder of this legacy that will serve many generations to come."
In light of that statement and the concern expressed by Peat Marwick Thorne and by Margolick -- which, with all due respect, I have a great deal more faith in at this point -- perhaps the minister could at least advise the committee whether there is a direct democracy opportunity for the people to come forward to petition the BCUC to conduct a thorough review of these three projects with respect to their viability and their social and economic impact, so it isn't left in the hands of B.C. Hydro and the Minister of Employment and Investment, who really are advocates for this project. It appears that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is also an advocate for this project. Is there any mechanism that she can identify which would be available for direct democracy in this case and a direct appeal to the BCUC?
Hon. A. Edwards: There is an excellent process for direct democracy to occur; it is called the Columbia Basin Trust. It will be there to decide whether or not the people of the Columbia Basin are going to invest in these projects. They
[ Page 14220 ]
have had representatives of their regional districts and of their tribal council negotiate to have those put there so that they have the possibility of investing. There has to be an annual meeting of the people in the region for that trust. That is probably the most basic forum for democratic input by the people on this issue.
However, that does not take away other excellent democratic methods to deal with this issue. The Utilities Commission could well be asked to review the project. I will repeat, because I'm not sure that the member got this.... I'm trying to say again and again that if the Utilities Commission is not asked, it may be because the Environmental Assessment Act is being proclaimed and we have reviewed those projects through the environmental impact assessment process. So it could be the Utilities Commission or it could be the environmental assessment process, when the minister makes the decision whether or not it needs to be reviewed in a broader sense.
I've said very clearly to you that nearly always the minister will decide that a complex project like this will be reviewed by another body, so that is what is likely to happen. Whether or not the Utilities Commission reviews the project, the Utilities Commission will review the contracts. Nothing is going to happen with a project if they can't sell the power. In order to sell the power, they have to have contracts. The B.C. Utilities Commission will be reviewing those contracts to see if they are fair to the consumer. They too have access to all of these reports, which have named a number of situations that we must be very careful to avoid. Certainly there have been reports on the Keenleyside project at least, I would say, for the last 35 years, so there is lots of material. There are warnings in every one of them; I would say every report that has ever been put forward on any of these projects has some warnings in it. I think any public body that is acting for the people has to keep the public good in mind and deal with any project by looking at it with due diligence.
The Chair: Hon. member, I wonder if it's time to canvass another topic. It is beginning to sound repetitive to the Chair.
W. Hurd: With respect, hon. Chair, we are dealing with the investment of $1 billion, of which $500 million will belong to the taxpayers of the province. I have, with your indulgence, just a few more questions.
Maybe I could ask the minister whether she, as a representative for the region and as a signatory to the Columbia Basin agreement, believes the projects are viable.
Hon. A. Edwards: I would have to take advice, and I have not yet had the amount of advice I want in order to make that decision.
W. Hurd: Backing up to the Columbia Basin accord, what exactly was the minister signing?
Hon. A. Edwards: The minister was signing an opportunity to have these projects looked at.
W. Hurd: That's not what the memorandum said. The memorandum clearly indicates that the projects are the province's commitment in terms of the amount of money that it's going to kick in to dovetail with the downstream benefits; it is pretty explicit. I must say that I find it absolutely astonishing that having signed that agreement -- participating in the signing ceremony and being actively involved in the press release -- the minister would now say that all she was signing was an opportunity to review the projects.
On that note, I agree that we're not making much progress on this particular issue. I will say that I do hope that the B.C. Utilities Commission can be involved in this project. I think there is enough evidence out there to suggest that it should review not only these contracts but your export contracts. They should also review the project costs and the social implications. I think the three-dam project has as many potential impacts for the people of the Kootenays, as the Kemano completion project has in the Nechako and Prince George regions.
[3:30]
I just hope that even though we haven't been able to get that commitment, the ministry will reflect on the considerable body of evidence that exists and will provide the people of the entire province, but particularly the people of the region, with the opportunity to participate in a thorough review beyond the parameters of the Columbia Basin Trust.
Hon. A. Edwards: I must not leave it on record. This is not a three-dam project in the sense of building dams; this is adding generators to existing dams.
R. Chisholm: I just have a couple of questions. Hon. minister, there are mine rescue teams here in British Columbia, rather good teams to be exact. I just wonder if your ministry funds, trains or has any jurisdiction over these rescue teams, and to what degree the ministry has jurisdiction in this area?
Hon. A. Edwards: You are absolutely correct in saying that we have some extremely good mine rescue teams in British Columbia. The ministry sponsors the provincial competitions, which happen at various levels. They happen in zones and then at the provincial level. I would say that most, if not all, members of the teams are employees of mines in the province. They train and work at the expense of the local mining companies. The province puts forward about $70,000 a year for the competitions -- for prizes, plaques, awards -- and the ministry gets to present the awards, which is a very pleasant occasion.
R. Chisholm: That being the case, I just wonder what the ministry's responsibilities are in relation to PEP, if we have emergencies within the province and whether these teams would be part of them. Just what would your jurisdiction be? After all, if I take a look at the PEP flow chart, most ministries are represented in one way or another. I am just wondering what your responsibilities are.
Hon. A. Edwards: We're not responsible for the PEP program. As you know, it is in another ministry. We have a mine safety coordinator who works with the PEP process and the organization for that. We are constantly aware of where the mine rescue teams are and PEP is, therefore, aware of where they are. We would coordinate any use of them that would be needed at any time. As you may or may not know, that has happened. Sometimes underground mines need extra underground mine rescue teams. We have actually loaned them internationally as well as across the country.
[ Page 14221 ]
The ministry is doing a lot of geological work related to earthquakes as well.
R. Chisholm: I realize that the ministry is not responsible for PEP, but PEP sent out a directive a couple of years back which gave direction to each and every ministry as to what their responsibilities should or should not be. Do you have a policy within your ministry on what your responsibilities would be in an emergency? Could we have a copy of that section of the policy?
Hon. A. Edwards: There's no question we have policy. We can certainly make that available to you.
R. Chisolm: My second line of questioning is in the area of additives to fuel. I'm wondering if there's any responsibility within your ministry in the additive area, and whether you are on any of the commissions or committees that look into it -- and I'm talking countrywide -- at this point in time.
Hon. A. Edwards: The name of this committee is the Deputy Ministers' Committee on Clean Vehicles and Clean Fuels. Our ministry sits on that, and we advise and work with other government ministries, and also with the industry and so on, to arrive at some rules and regulations which we hope will keep the environment as clean as possible and respond to the demands for good fuel and so on. Yes, we do sit on that committee.
R. Chisholm: As the minister knows, I've had a bill before the House on ethanol, and I've pushed that one because of how it will clean up our fuels. The federal government is trying to find alternatives to MTBE, and I'm wondering what this ministry's recommendations have been to the federal government, especially when the federal government has put up $70 million in incentives for ethanol plants. They've put it up as part of their Green Plan. When you think about ethanol, it could enhance agriculture and forestry within this province. I'm just wondering what the status of ethanol would be in relationship to MTBE.
Hon. A. Edwards: We just recently put out "Cleaner Fuels for Clearer Air," which talks about alternative fuels. We are alternative-fuel-neutral. We do not recommend one alternative over another, and we try to make the opportunities there for the public to test them, for environmental technicians to decide what is best, and so on and so forth.
The federal government is looking at MMT rather than MTBE, I believe, and there is a great argument going on about it. We are trying to, when we are involved, bring common sense to the argument. It's difficult. The research is difficult to translate into agreement by everyone.
R. Chisholm: Yes, MMT is what they're trying to move to -- it's too long to say in its full length. What I'm talking about here isn't an alternative fuel. I'm talking about an additive to a fuel as an interim step until we get to an alternative. If you look at electric, it's still 25 to 30 years down the road, and if you look at some of the other fossil fuels, there are problems with those. As an interim measure, is this ministry looking at that as an additive to the fuels that are presently being used in our automobiles? This is not an alternative; it is an additive to our present fuel, to clean it up.
Hon. A. Edwards: I think the member is probably aware that we currently don't tax ethanol. We do consider ethanol an alternative fuel, and we support the broader use of ethanol, because it's good. We've also done a lot of work to look at the possible production of ethanol in the province. We have encouraged and continue to encourage the federal government's research activities into ethanol. They have a project going on again this year. So all I can say is that we don't have a preference for any particular alternative fuel. I think ethanol has good benefits in more than simply the emission level. It could be created and produced in British Columbia and that would be good. So we do encourage the use of alternative fuels by not taxing them right now. That is a time-limited benefit, but we do support ethanol as a fuel.
R. Chisholm: I thank the minister for her words. I hope she's carrying that message forward to the other ministries, because ethanol would put our farmers back to work in the Peace area which could again become a viable industry within our own borders. Plus, it could be utilized for hog fuel. We have a massive problem there. As you probably know, we could use it in our landfills, and you can make ethanol out of newspaper, too. We're always complaining about filling up landfills.
My next area I'd like to talk about is natural gas and electricity, and the price of these particular commodities, especially for an organization -- say, horticulturists. The increases of the past couple of years have made them rather unproductive and not competitive with their competitors south or even east of us. I'm wondering if your ministry has any say in setting or recommending prices, or who exactly is doing this, because we are putting ourselves out of business in this particular area at the present time.
There have been a number of meetings across the province with various organizations that utilize these fuels. Their costs have become massive, and they have now become uncompetitive in the marketplace. If we keep going on this way, I'm afraid that we'll put them out of business. I realize that they've taken PST off natural gas and electricity. I'm talking about a graduated program some businesses are doing to accommodate certain industries. I'm wondering if the ministry itself has looked into this area and given recommendations to the commercial network or to other ministries.
Hon. A. Edwards: The price of natural gas goes up and down. It is currently low. I'm sure that will be reflected fairly soon in the prices that commercial enterprises will get from B.C. Utilities. So I don't know if it makes a lot of sense to change that. There are residential rates, commercial rates and so on. It's a deregulated market, so I think there's probably as much competition as you could get right now in the natural gas market.
Anyway, if you'll forgive me -- and I don't mean to interrupt your flow of questions -- I did want to say, while everyone is here, that we have today been able to announce infrastructure natural gas projects in B.C. While we talked about them mainly yesterday, we now have the announcement. We have 30 gas extension projects that will be funded under the infrastructure program. So if you have further questions on that, I'm open to those questions as well.
[ Page 14222 ]
R. Chisholm: I realize that the prices of fuels go up and down and that there are differences. What some companies have been able to do is put in a program where they can balance that out for the farmer or for the horticulturist. I'm just wondering if the ministry is recommending that or trying to guide the industries down the right road to help us remain competitive. I'm not just talking about natural gas now; I'm talking about electric power and the like.
Moving to the second part of my question, there used to be a program for expanding natural gas into the suburbs and into the rural areas. I'm just wondering if that program is still in effect and, if so, how much is being spent on that program at this time.
Hon. A. Edwards: The utilities will balance your annual bill, you know. It will take an estimate of what your annual bill will be and balance it out across the months. That is something utilities will do. But if you are talking about the price of natural gas, I believe the price is certainly competitive in B.C. I know the price of electricity is competitive. I think we have tried to ensure that fuel prices are competitive in B.C. That's part of what we are doing.
You brought up an issue I was just talking about -- the natural gas extension. This is under the Infrastructure Works program. The provincial, federal and local governments will cost-share $5.7 million. A third of that, or about $2 million, is what British Columbia is putting into this project. This will be for 30 natural gas extensions in the Cariboo, Bulkley-Nechako, North Okanagan, East Kootenay, Central Kootenay and Kitimat-Stikine regional districts, as well as in the district of Hudson's Hope. It will also include an extension for Centra Gas in Fort St. John -- not on the Island....
R. Neufeld: It will go in a little further north than that.
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, basically just north of Fort St. John. These projects will allow people to have better access to natural gas. That is the infrastructure program that was signed with the federal government. Those projects will go ahead soon.
R. Chisholm: Just one more comment on natural gas. I am talking about commercial enterprises and farmers; I'm not talking about homes or having a balanced bill over a 12-month period. I am talking about a graduated bill at less cost to provide incentives for this industry to grow rather than to falter. Private enterprise has been able to see its way clear with some companies, and I am just wondering if the ministry is giving any guidance.
[3:45]
Further to that press release, which I admit I have not yet seen -- it must have just come out -- is there an extension into the Fraser Valley? After all, I know I sent half a dozen letters to the minister on extending gas up into the Ryder Lake area. Or is it strictly outside the Fraser Valley?
Hon. A. Edwards: How the infrastructure program was done was that municipal and regional governments made applications for projects; there is nothing in the Fraser Valley that I see at all. I am not sure there were any applications from the Fraser Valley; there may not have been. The 30 projects are the most efficient projects we could do, and they will be given that extra assistance so that people can get extensions.
R. Chisholm: My last question. Could the ministry let me know what regional districts within the Fraser Valley applied? I know there has been a problem there; I have notified your ministry of it. Could you also provide me with the policy on your emergency measures response responsibilities for PEP? I would be most appreciative.
Hon. A. Edwards: I would be pleased to do that.
R. Neufeld: I want to briefly go back to the Columbia Basin Trust, with a different line of questioning than what transpired earlier by the Liberals. Coming from the north and having dealt with Westcoast Energy, I have often been a proponent of infrastructure in sparsely populated areas, even though it is quite expensive compared to the lower mainland. I am sure the minister knows what I am talking about, coming from the community she does. Even if the costs are high, once you spread it over the whole system -- whether it's the natural gas system through Westcoast and their guaranteed rate of return or through B.C. Hydro systems and their guaranteed rate of return -- there can be an awful lot of economic and other benefits to residents of the province by doing that, rather than trying to section off each little area and saying that each one has to meet a certain goal.
When I listen to the Liberals talk about being so concerned about the Utilities Commission, and when I hear the proposal that's going to go on with the three upgrades at the Waneta and Brilliant dams in the Kootenays, I wonder, when I think back over a bit of history, why they would be so adamant about the Utilities Commission hearing anything. I go back to the decision made by the Utilities Commission on the Kemano completion project. There was a process put in place by this government to go through the environmental process on the Kemano completion project. While this was going on, the Liberals were very critical of the NDP government for having made a decision on the Tatshenshini and on Windy Craggy before the mining review process was completed. Yet by simply polling the province, the Liberals made a decision on the Kemano completion project before there was even a Utilities Commission report tabled. At least the government waited. Even though they may have had in their mind the decision they wanted to make about the Kemano completion project, they waited until the Utilities Commission had actually tabled the report.
It amazes me that a Liberal would stand here and be so adamant about wanting the Utilities Commission to listen to a project that's going to take place in the Kootenays. I just can't relate those things, and in fact, I'm wondering why they just don't have another poll. Let's call a polling company -- I don't know, any one of them -- and let's have a poll of British Columbians, and that's how we'd make the decision. That's obviously how they made their decision when it came to the Kemano completion project. That's just a statement of some of my feelings about that kind of philosophy.
Getting back to the Columbia Basin Trust, the Peace system is an integral part of the process of generating electricity for the province. The two Peace dams generate 37 percent of the hydro generated in British Columbia, give or take a few percent. They work very closely with what happens in the Columbia system.
Regardless of which government was there before, I'm not trying to talk about that. They probably should have, but.... There are some things that happened on the Peace
[ Page 14223 ]
that have not been rectified. I have a letter on my desk where there are people who were moved off their land, and their land was flooded. They are still generating their hydro with a diesel plant, and they're within 20 miles of the dam. I don't think it's even that far, in fact; I think it's closer. Hydro has offered them a new diesel plant to carry on.
These kinds of things are absolutely ridiculous. I want to find out why the minister wouldn't include the whole hydro system, including the Peace, in the Columbia Basin Trust, so that some of the benefits that the Kootenays will certainly get out of the Columbia Basin Trust Act could also come to the Peace River. I know that some money already comes to the Peace River in environment and those kinds of things, and through stocking of the fisheries, but it should be an integral part of the Columbia Basin Trust. I would like to hear from the minister on why she felt that it shouldn't be.
Hon. A. Edwards: The Peace system and the Columbia system are two major parts of the full B.C. Hydro electrical system. We have just completed our response to the report that came in when we directed B.C. Hydro to do an electrical systems operation review, which brings in all the systems, and certainly brought in the Peace system as well. I hope, responding to that review, that there will be opportunities for us to assure that the kind of mitigation that should be done is done. It's important for us to have public consultation in order for B.C. Hydro to be in touch with the people and for government to know what the people are saying to B.C. Hydro about what's going on. All of those things will happen.
I might say as well, if you're talking about the Dunlevy Road people, that I have spent a lot of time working on that issue and hope to solve it outside any of our processes. I think it should be solved, and I understand what you're saying. I believe you were just using it as an example of the kind of thing that can happen and that did happen in the Peace system as well.
Nevertheless, when you look at what happened in this province and in the Columbia system, if you really look carefully -- I know there was an uproar in the Peace system; there were all those things -- the Columbia system had some very clear failures of fairness that have been widely recognized. Anybody who's been in both areas will agree with that, I think. This is an attempt to make the compensation that was not made at the beginning of the Columbia River Treaty. That money comes directly as a result of three dams that were built in the Columbia Basin. That is the connection.
R. Neufeld: I don't wish to make light of what happened in the Columbia, and I'm not. I know there was some unfairness in the system in the Columbia. I'm not as aware of it as the minister is, but I know there was unfairness -- as there was in a lot of areas of the Peace. It might have been more harsh in different parts of it, but there was unfairness in both.
Just skipping, because we're still talking about energy, you have social costing for electric power. It kind of doesn't fall within your purview, but it crosses it. The annual report says that social costing means evaluating energy resources, not only in financial terms but also in terms of their wider impacts on society and the environment. It goes on to say that the ministry staff were involved with B.C. Hydro.
When I look at the projects that were proposed, I wonder about IPPs on the Island, specifically for a generation of electricity through natural gas. The social impacts that we in the north feel because of the drilling programs, the pipelines and all those kind of things that go on with that industry.... Is the Ministry of EMPR actively looking at what can be done to return some benefit, much the same as the Columbia Basin, to the north through the same process? We're going to be generating the natural gas in the north -- unless there's some place offshore that I don't know of that it's going to come from -- down to the Island. I don't have a lot of problem with that; that's using our gas wisely. Usually, all we get to do is drill the wells and send the gas down here, and nothing else. What I'm asking is: is the ministry going to actively look at having some of the impact that happens in the north taken care of in the building of any plants that are proposed on Vancouver Island or the lower mainland?
Hon. A. Edwards: You're probably aware that B.C. Hydro is currently putting together an integrated resource plan.
R. Neufeld: Yes.
Hon. A. Edwards: That is done by social costing. They take into account all of these costs and benefits -- the social costs, the economic costs, the environmental costs and benefits that go into each of the projects proposed. Then they rate those projects and put them in order for a preferred integrated resource plan. So I would say yes, those factors are definitely considered. It was our plan that that would happen. B.C. Gas Corp. does it for its customers and the Utilities Commission reviews it. West Kootenay Power has done theirs and now B.C. Hydro is doing theirs. When a project is proposed, the attempt is to give it a full cost, not just to look at the bottom line that a company would have to put out -- in other words, not talking about those things for which somebody else bears the cost though it doesn't show in the bottom line. That is what we are trying to avoid; we're trying to look at full costs. I would say that those costs are definitely recognized that way.
You may go beyond that. I'd also mention the agreement we signed recently which the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced in Fort St. John, about a further tax levy primarily on Westcoast Energy Inc. That kind of thing and the special tax arrangement goes into the municipalities in the northeast in order to respond to the fact that the municipalities don't get to tax pipelines because they go somewhere else. Those kinds of things are an attempt to equalize the costs and benefits to each region.
R. Neufeld: First, the special tax levy signed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is far removed from what I am talking about. That's just getting equity and taxation across the whole province. Comparing the oil and gas industry to the forest industry, on average around the province the forest industry was paying a tremendous amount of the taxes in each community because their plants were within community boundaries. In the north, because the sites are all over the place -- some as far as two or three hundred miles from the city -- although the city was providing the services, it couldn't tax those areas. That is a separate but I don't think a special thing for the north other than just taxation equity.
[4:00]
[ Page 14224 ]
To shorten the question, will your ministry be an advocate for those people in the north who generate the natural gas and the oil in this province to B.C. Hydro when they figure in the social costing for plants that will be built in the lower mainland -- specifically maybe on Vancouver Island or over on the mainland -- to generate electricity? Will your ministry be an advocate for those people in the north and that industry in the north that something comes back to them when these things happen?
Hon. A. Edwards: What we are talking about is a great trade-off, isn't it? The employment and the economic activity goes on in the northeast, and if a natural gas plant is built in the lower mainland, or wherever, that benefit remains in the northeast. It's there already. The balance I've been talking about is what the integrated resource planners tried to do. There is no question.... I think most people in the northeast believe you would say you want more natural gas plants down south. Those benefits are considered in the resource planning. There is always a certain wait for the kind of employment and the economic benefit that goes to the regions for any project, so with a natural gas one that would be considered.
R. Neufeld: The minister has confused me a bit. What we're saying is that what's happening in the Kootenays with the Columbia Basin Trust shouldn't really be happening. The economic activity that took place building those dams should be enough. That's the economic activity the Kootenays would receive, and that's it. I thought -- and assumed when I read the social costing for electric power -- that it was going to be applied something the same as the theme behind the Columbia Basin Trust, where something else is going to be generated in the Kootenays to take care of the environmental impacts, the flooding of land and the social issues. I thought that was happening, and that's all I am asking. Certainly the activity will happen in the north and the wells will be drilled. We want some stability. That's what we are looking for: some stability for the social costs that those people feel. Maybe, for instance, we can look again at the ministry starting a rural gasification program, regardless of what happened with the Canada infrastructure grant and those types of things.
That's what I had hoped this paragraph meant in the annual report, but the minister is saying that really we should be happy with just the economic activity that takes place when drilling the wells. Is that it? Is that what she is really saying, or did I misunderstand?
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly I am not saying that anybody should be happy with whatever, because that doesn't work, does it? People want to make their decisions. I do not compare this to the Columbia Basin Trust situation, because the inequity there was that compensation was never paid. It was a historical thing. Thirty years ago there was a huge amount of money that was never paid to the people of that area.
But you are right. I think that we've all recognized that there was economic benefit from building those dams. There were other offsetting costs, but there were certainly benefits. What I am saying is that the more natural gas you produce in the northeast, the more economic activity you will have. Certainly you're going to get more of a tax levy from....
We have made arrangements so that you get that return rather than having it all go out of the area, not paid to municipalities. We're trying to equalize what you put out and what you get back, and make sure that you get a fair return for your economic activity. I am sure that you would want your area to be producing gas for gas-fired plants and other things in the rest of the province.
R. Neufeld: Certainly. I'm not saying we shouldn't have economic activity. I am not saying that the activity of the plants, the gas wells, the pipelines and all of that shouldn't take place. I am not saying that we shouldn't generate electricity on the Island or in the lower mainland with natural gas. I am saying we should. That's where I am coming from.
But as I read this.... Maybe we have to come back to this paragraph on social costing for electric power. Maybe I am just having a hard time understanding the minister, but I'll read it again: "Social costing means evaluating energy resources not only in financial terms but also in terms of their wider impact on society and the environment." Could the minister explain to me, then, if that means only the economic activity that takes place or drilling for natural gas? Is that what that covers? It seems to me to cover a lot more.
Hon. A. Edwards: I am trying to find a way to say this, because in fact social costing takes a basketful of social projects and applies all the measures of the benefits and the costs. I think that's what you understand. What we're saying is that when there is a proposed natural gas project, it is put in the same basket as another proposal for wood waste generation and another for a small hydro.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
You would look at the economic benefit that comes to the community where it is put. How many jobs are there? What kind of economic activity is it going to generate? What is the impact on the environment? Is it going to broaden our base of economic activity, and is it going to be regional rather than centralized in areas that already have extensive economic activity? So the financial and technical issues are there. Environmental and social issues are all involved with an attempt to....
You can't quantify everything, but you can make an attempt to do a balancing-out so that the quality issues can be balanced as well as the quantity issues and you come to some agreement as to what kind of weight they have. So the social costing is there; it includes every community that would be touched by a project, and certainly the process is open to anybody with input on benefits and costs.
Environmental impacts include such things as flooding, and emissions into the air with one kind of plant rather than another; and certainly with wood waste is a benefit, because you are using what otherwise would have to be dealt with as waste. All those things are going to be put in. So that's the social costing process.
R. Neufeld: For years the north has always felt, rightly or wrongly -- and I think they are right most of the time -- that they have not received some of the benefits they should get. It is simply a matter of the kinds of services most people put up with. I can relate it to telephones. We have people in my constituency who will pay up to $10,000 to have a telephone
[ Page 14225 ]
installed. Try that in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island, and you might get quite a cry coming from people. We have people in the north doing that. We have people in the north spending thousands of dollars to get natural gas to their houses.
And I know people may say: "Well, you choose to live there." They do choose to live there: someone has to live there, and someone has to do that work. Most of the time they like the country, so they do put up with some of those kinds of issues. But what they are saying is that when these resources are developed -- I'm talking specifically about natural gas or hydro electricity -- they are for the masses really. It's a benefit to them -- they don't dispute that -- while the work is going on, but it is a benefit to the lower mainland residents who simply have to call up B.C. Hydro and get hooked up, or call up B.C. Tel and it doesn't cost them anything. They flick a switch, and they have their telephone -- all those kinds of things.
Now the people in the north are not asking for all the amenities that people in the south have. They quite understand they can't have them all, but they hope they can have the basic ones. So when the minister explains the social costing for electric power, I understand her to mean that the impacts on society and the environment which are going to be dealt with.... Let's say if all the plants are built on the Island, it will only deal with the Island, in isolation of what takes place at the other end of the spectrum, which is where I come from and where the raw material comes from.
I'm saying they have to be integrated. One is as important as the other in costing out these kinds of projects. That is what I am trying to get across to the minister: that I hope your ministry will be an advocate for those people in the north so that they get their due. I am not saying they want a Cadillac. Most of them just want the basic services; that is all they are asking for.
But I am afraid what this means, from listening to the minister, is that really you are talking again about the social impacts and the environmental impacts in the lower mainland. And we're going to deal in isolation of what is really happening with the social and environmental impacts -- and there are a lot of them -- in the north.
Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly understand what you are talking about in the resource-producing areas of this province, because they often feel quite left out. They feel they produce the wealth for the province and they don't get the return.
The integrated resource planning process includes that. When you are talking about the environmental impact of a project, you may be talking about a project here, but if you are talking about a natural gas project, the environmental impact of producing that gas is also considered. It is an integrated system, to that extent. It's the economic benefit to the northeast as well as to the lower mainland where they might have a cheaper project.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister a question with regard to Columbia River storage. I understand that water storage under the treaty is approximately an 80-20 split with the United States. Is there any non-treaty storage in the Columbia River agreement?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes. In fact, the Mica reservoir has more storage than was required to be built under the treaty. That is what is called the non-treaty storage.
D. Jarvis: Who has control of that non-treaty storage?
Hon. A. Edwards: B.C. Hydro is the entity that acts for the province under the Columbia River Treaty and controls that storage.
D. Jarvis: What value is there in that non-treaty storage? Have we sold it?
[4:15]
Hon. A. Edwards: We don't have the number right at our fingertips. B.C. Hydro entered an agreement with Bonneville Power Administration about four years ago. Under that agreement they have, on occasion, stored water which then went for generation of electricity in the U.S.
D. Jarvis: Is that an agreement that's up every year, or is it on a long-term basis?
Hon. A. Edwards: The agreement needs review at a regular interval. I'm not sure exactly when that is.
D. Jarvis: It's been a long day. I think I did ask you what it was worth, dollars-and-cents wise, and you were going to find that out for me. I assume the contract for the value of it is up for review, as well as the actual contract for storage.
Hon. A. Edwards: That's correct. We don't have the figure at our fingertips on how much has been returned for non-treaty storage. The contract will be reviewed both for price and for the terms.
This may be the time to talk about the government's response to the electrical systems operation review. We asked for more information from B.C. Hydro on the non-treaty storage agreement. We asked that this information include: a detailed review of the benefits to date of the agreement; monthly figures for all B.C. Hydro and BPA storage accounts under that agreement; and critical analyses of the extent to which the agreement has been implemented and whether it has achieved its original objectives. The fourth thing we asked about was the potential to achieve the Kinbasket and Arrow alternatives in the absence of the non-treaty storage agreement, and the effect that this would have on the rest of the electrical system. So this was one of the information gaps -- I guess you could call it that -- that was identified when we asked B.C. Hydro to review its system. They reported to us, and we said that we needed more information on the non-treaty storage agreement. We expect to have it within the ministry fairly soon.
D. Jarvis: In the last five or six years, they've had problems with American environmental laws requiring them to flush more water down through the U.S. system during the spawning periods for sturgeon and salmon. Just lately, the Americans said that they wanted to draw more water down. I assume they're going to draw this down on the non-treaty storage area. Or are they drawing it down more on the treaty? Will we get paid for that in the sense of downstream benefits?
Hon. A. Edwards: First of all, they can draw it out of the Kootenay River or they can draw it out of the Columbia River. If they draw from the non-treaty storage, they will take it to the Columbia system. They said specifically that they wanted
[ Page 14226 ]
to increase the amount of water they would draw down under the non-treaty storage agreement. Of course, it's up to B.C. Hydro whether that's possible or not.
The other way they could possibly draw down is to have an agreement with B.C. Hydro on the operation of the dams, because under the treaty you expect a certain amount of generation every year. If something interferes with that amount of generation, then there is compensation due. We have notified the Americans formally that if there is that kind of drawdown, which impacts on our own purse because of generation and the absence of water being drawn down for fish, we will be expecting our compensation under the treaty. So there are requirements under the treaty to make sure that we have some control over our own destiny. Also, under the non-treaty storage agreement, there is no requirement that if the Americans ask for it, they get it. There has to be an agreement that it's going to be suitable.
D. Jarvis: Just before we leave the Columbia, I'd like to read a statement into the record on behalf of the Reform Party. Very recently Mr. Weisgerber said that no special benefits should go to the Columbia River region. I just want to throw that in, seeing how I was given a snide remark a little while ago.... Oh, he has gone for the day, so we're all by ourselves for a while.
I've had it said to me that the level of the Williston reservoir is mythical, but it's not mythical -- the 2,150-foot level is what the residents and the industry up there feel is the acceptable level to be able to keep the mills and the community going. Someone said to me that the minister had said that Williston Lake would not be drawn down any less than 2,130. There's a hue and cry with the new electrical equipment that's out now that it's going to be drawn down as far as it can possibly go, even drying it up in view of the province needing power in the present Alcan situation.
Hon. A. Edwards: No commitments were made on any minimum levels for the Williston reservoir by any minister in this government or the one before this. There has been a great deal of discussion and an agreement reached with the mills on Williston Lake. They had a previous agreement to build structures which would allow them to tolerate the drawing down of the reservoir below 2,150. But they hadn't done that work, so we came into an agreement. The province has spent about $10 million to help with works that allow the mills to operate, even if the level of the reservoir is below 2,150. What has happened in the electrical systems operation review is that we have assured that B.C. Hydro will document steps that are being taken by the mills, by Hydro or by the province to address the impacts of predicted drawdowns below 2,150. They will have to improve their systems for communicating when the level is going to go below 2,150. They are going to have to have ongoing consultation mechanisms to make sure that everyone knows when the water level is going to go below 2,150. There will be a firm and reliable method of consulting with people and letting them know anytime that the level in Williston Reservoir is going to go below 2,150.
If it looks as though the level might go below 2,130, which is something that happens extremely infrequently -- it's expected to do that maybe twice in 50 years -- the requirements for B.C. Hydro are even more stringent. Hydro will not only have to notify everybody in the area, including the mills, the residents and the government, but there will have to be a political decision to allow that to happen. That is what the government's response to the ESOR said to B.C. Hydro.
D. Jarvis: When I mentioned Alcan, the minister looked somewhat surprised. What I was trying to allude to was Alcan's last two contracts with B.C. Hydro. They said that in view of the KCP cancellation, they would not be able to keep their last contract. On their previous contract, they were allotting 285 megawatts, I think it was. The suggestion is now that it will either be cancelled or dropped down significantly, because Alcan is contemplating opening up at least half of another potline. We're going to have a drastic shortage of approximately.... According to the B.C. Hydro report, we need about 800 megawatts of power coming down through that area, and if Alcan is allowed -- which they will be -- to not live up to their contract, then there's going to be a great shortage of power in the lower mainland.
I'm trying to think of the gentleman's name who is head of B.C. Hydro now.
The Chair: Sheehan.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear that.... In any event, I can't think of the gentleman's name, but the chairman has said that, if necessary, when they need power in British Columbia, they are going to drawn down on the Williston. Can the minister say that this will not happen, as far as her Energy ministry is concerned?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'm not sure just exactly what you're saying in terms of "will not happen." Do you mean that Kemano would not have sufficient power? Maybe I'll let you clarify, because I'm not sure what you mean.
D. Jarvis: I want to clarify that Alcan has said they are going to open up another potline, and that they're going to have to further reduce the amount of power they're going to give B.C. Hydro. The chairman of B.C. Hydro says that if they're short of power to draw in from the north, they're going to have to draw down Williston Lake. My thought is that the Ministry of Energy and the B.C. Utilities Commission actually control who draws down what water where. Is the minister prepared to draw down Williston Lake below the acceptable figure in that area?
Hon. A. Edwards: The Kemano completion was to provide 285 megawatts, and B.C. Hydro was to buy 200 of that, leaving only 85 megawatts there. It would be easy to partly replace that amount through the recent request for proposals, but B.C. Hydro could certainly replace it from downstream benefits or whatever, as well. There is no concern about B.C. Hydro being able to supply the province with enough energy.
[4:30]
Just to talk a little bit about Kemano itself, the Kemano 1 project generates 140 megawatts. They recently shut down a potline of 60 megawatts. Basically, they have the capacity to generate 200 megawatts, which is two-thirds of the contract with B.C. Hydro. At any rate, they are able to supply a large part of the energy that has been talked about there. Obviously these figures can still be moved around, because if Kemano
[ Page 14227 ]
decides to open that potline again, they would need that. But there is no reason to suppose that there would be a shortage of electricity in British Columbia. There is no reason to suppose that we would have to go down to 2,130, to unsafe levels in Williston Lake for any particular reason to supply Kemano or Alcan.
D. Jarvis: In B.C. Hydro's supply report for 1994, they indicated that 400 to 440 megawatts of power are required from Alcan. In view of the cancellation, one wonders where that 400 megawatts is going to come from. Not only are they not going to get that 400 megawatts, they will not get, by 1997, Alcan's 200 megawatts, if that is going to be used for production of aluminum. The price of aluminum is skyrocketing, and Alcan is going to jump into the business even more. The question I want to ask, therefore, is: where are they going to get that extra power? Perhaps Mr. Ostergaard could tell us.
Hon. A. Edwards: It is certainly not for me to say what Alcan is going to do. We do know that they currently have a surplus of approximately 140 megawatts of electricity that they generate. Since the potline that they recently shut down took 60 megawatts, I would be surprised if it would take them 200 megawatts to start a new potline, even if they decided to do that. I don't know that we, as amateurs standing here figuring it out, are going to save a lot. In the broad sense of things, B.C. has many energy supplies. Not only do we continue to work at conservation, which is a very good method of keeping our demand under control, but we have lots of opportunities for supply. As you know, when B.C. Hydro called for 200 to 300 megawatts of power, they had 3,000 offered. I'm sure not all of those are economical, but there will be a significant number that are. I don't think any part of British Columbia is going to be short of electricity.
D. Jarvis: Well, I'm not too sure how long it takes to bring an independent power project up to speed, but if B.C. Hydro says that they require the potential at KCP, which was 440 megawatts, and Alcan was going to give them a further.... They had a contract of 285, that's over 600. I've been told that by the end of next year they will be running short by about 800 megawatts. That has to be made up by independent projects. Is the minister aware of the attempt to draw up the Burrard Thermal plant as a base supply for hydro rather than as a backup?
Hon. A. Edwards: We do not foresee any shortage of electricity in British Columbia. The Burrard plant continues to be used, because it gives the stability of supply that is needed. Many people would like to shut it down, but without that thermal generation capacity, it would be difficult to keep the lower mainland in good supply. I have no indication that anybody foresees a shortage of electricity -- and certainly not a shortage of 800 megawatts. It just doesn't go with anything that I have heard.
D. Jarvis: I would, therefore, ask the minister if she's aware that we import electricity from Alberta that is produced by coal? What is her attitude with regard to producing electricity in British Columbia by using B.C. coal?
Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, we have an exchange agreement on the grid with Alberta. We import power from and export power to Alberta. Yes, it's true that Fording Coal is one of the companies that imports coal. They generate electricity by imported coal in Alberta. There are a couple of other areas. Fort Nelson has power generated in Alberta. We export electricity to Alberta in several areas, and I think it's about a wash. Of course, sometimes it really amounts to pretty well a wash over time.
Certainly people are alarmed in a water-short year like last year, when the reservoirs were not filled according to expectations and we did import thermal electricity. It sounds like a lot of money -- it is a lot of money -- but it is not, over the long term, as expensive to import on the occasional water-short year as it is to build another dam to sit there with that much unused capacity.
That's the choice right now. There is a lot of energy available to be developed in B.C. Most of the independent power projects would take about three years to develop.
D. Jarvis: If we built a dam and we had extra power in storage, we certainly could always sell it. But we did import last year -- I don't know what it will be this year -- $50-plus million from Alberta, using coal. What I'm trying to drive at is that the world's growing pretty big. By the year 2020 I certainly won't be around, but we'll probably see five billion people in the world. And we can't keep them away from our doorstep. You know, British Columbia is sort of an island surrounded by envy. People are going to be pouring into this province, so we're going to be needing electrical power. I wanted to know: if we have untold riches in coal, why aren't we using coal to produce power, rather than having to import it from Alberta?
Hon. A. Edwards: So far we have not had a coal project that has proven to be economical. I'd love to have a coal project in B.C. We export so much coal, and there is excellent, clean coal technology available. I would like to see a plant do that. I recognize the disadvantages of a coal plant, but there are real benefits to a coal plant as well, and I think that one coal plant, at least, would be very, very good for the province. It would give us a diversity that we would like. But then I'm a coal advocate whenever I can be, so I would like to see one.
After your colleague argued rather vociferously that there are great dangers in developing another generator in three dams in the Columbia Basin, you suggest all of a sudden that if we had another dam, we could always sell it.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Edwards: That's what the member said. Well, if the member thinks we could always sell it, I find that interesting. But everything requires balance, and we are trying to make sure that the best kind of balance available is there. It's interesting, again, to see the opposition party make statements about the Columbia Basin and dams that go both ways.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
D. Jarvis: It's always interesting to see that every time we seem to make a statement, the other parties, whether they be government or the second or third or fourth party, always seem to be attacking us. Poor us. The minister, I believe, knows full well that I was using that as an example; if we have water in this province, we can always sell it, whether it be the
[ Page 14228 ]
water itself or through an electrical system. I'm not proposing that we build any more dams in this province. So I'll put that on the record for you.
I want to ask another question, seeing that we're into energy, with regard to the Energy Council. I was wondering if the minister could provide us with the full costs for the creation and operation and cessation of the Energy Council.
Hon. A. Edwards: I will start with windup costs. When the Energy Council was wound up on December 1, 1994, a number of its business functions were incorporated into the ministry. But what we have here are the figures for ministry staff time and travel costs associated with closing the office and job placement activities, for staff access to requirements and for moving costs of council furniture, files, etc. That cost $16,700.
Mr. Gathercole received severance in the amount of $130,000 in lieu of notice of termination of his employment contract. That settlement is consistent with severance he could expect as equivalent to a deputy minister. Those negotiations were handled by PSERC.
D. Jarvis: Therefore that is the full and total cost of the Energy Council?
Hon. A. Edwards: The cost in 1993-94 was $1.5 million; in 1994-95 it was $950,000 plus the amounts I mentioned for the windup. Those were the council's costs.
[4:45]
D. Jarvis: Could the minister advise us when the contract for Mr. Gathercole was first signed and how long it was for?
Hon. A. Edwards: As I recall -- and I believe this is correct -- Mr. Gathercole began his work in June 1992.
D. Jarvis: How long was the contract for?
Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, what Mr. Gathercole had was a term appointment; he didn't have a contract. So when we ended his appointment at that point, the severance provisions that normally apply to deputy ministers applied to Mr. Gathercole.
D. Jarvis: Never having been a deputy minister, perhaps you could have your deputy minister tell us what the provisions for appointments are in this case. Was it written into his contract what the severance would be? How did you come to the $137,000?
Hon. A. Edwards: What happens with deputy ministers is that there is a policy for dealing with such things as severance. Mr. Gathercole was advised that he would be paid at a level similar to a deputy minister. Therefore when he was severed, he had access to the policy for deputy minister.
D. Jarvis: It's a subject I am completely unfamiliar with, but I want to talk to the minister about a situation involving tidal power. I don't know how involved the minister has been with tidal power, but I have a few things here stating that as a result of the Energy Council.... Of course, the Energy Council looked at all sorts of energy sources in this province, and I believe the Energy Council recommended that this would not necessarily be fully implemented, but would be looked into thoroughly.
This one company that has the main thing on tidal power going at the moment, called Nova Energy Ltd., has stated that regrettably, the B.C. Energy Council has largely been ignored by officials at Hydro. It goes on to say that your Energy ministry has ignored him as well. This Davis hydro turbine had been recommended by Dr. Halvorson over the objections of the Energy Council and the Energy ministry. I want to know if the minister has gone into any detail with tidal power. We will start with that.
Hon. A. Edwards: I wasn't sure who the member was quoting when he said he was ignored by all of us. I certainly enjoyed his presentation when he made it to me. I have seen it several times, because he regularly participates in this ministry's renewable energy conferences. He was at Simon Fraser University about ten days ago and gave one of the more interesting demonstrations there. He was there because he has great hope for the project. He has had a feasibility study funded by Employment and Investment and is now out looking again for the next step.
We support renewable energy. I don't think anybody has ignored this company, because they have done a considerable amount of work with what you named, the Davis engine -- or the Davis whatever. They have this process and a very interesting display.
D. Jarvis: I was trying to find the word for the minister with regard to the Davis catalytic -- or something along that line. Sorry, I am not up to date on that myself.
I would like to ask the minister if it is at the point now where the individual requires funding before we can see any advancement. Is any part of the Energy ministry ready to advance moneys to him or give him a licence to try it out?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, I believe they need more money; they want to do a pilot project. We are working with the company to try and get a letter of cooperation that would access some funding for them. We don't have any in our ministry for this kind of thing, but we'd access some funding through NR Canada -- Natural Resources Canada. We are working at that right now. Again, I have to say that I would be absolutely delighted to have a pilot project for this Davis engine and to see tidal power actually work.
D. Jarvis: That's good news, because if this gentleman is correct in his assumptions, it should solve a lot of problems in this province. Is it up to Nova Energy to make the next move or is it subject to him receiving moneys and a permit to set up a pilot project?
Hon. A. Edwards: As I said, we're working with the company to try to get a letter of cooperation. If they get some support from us, I'm sure they'll be willing to go ahead. If they don't get it, I'm sure they'll go somewhere else to try and get funding. It's a project that could be funded by anyone.
I might make the comment that as with all kinds of proposals for tidal generation, it takes specific areas where they can take advantage of the tide. It's quite different from the Bay of Fundy proposals, for example.
[ Page 14229 ]
R. Neufeld: I want to go back a little and ask a few questions about Mr. Gathercole's term of employment. You say he started in June 1992. I can't remember off the top of my head when his contract was completed.
Hon. A. Edwards: On December 1, 1994.
R. Neufeld: He was obviously employed for two and a half years with the ministry. I'm a little interested in why the ministry, if it knew this was going to be a short-term position, would hire someone paid as a deputy minister -- I believe that was the rate of pay -- and also have in his contract, or whatever was signed, the same severance allowance as for a deputy minister. I can't quite understand why we wouldn't just hire consultants to deal with the kinds of issues Mr. Gathercole dealt with or to bring them forward to government. Maybe they could have just a term of employment with someone, instead of setting up expectations and then all of a sudden having to pay a $130,000 pay-out.
That's probably where most people have problems with government, and it doesn't matter which government it is. When they do things like this, why don't they just go to the marketplace and hire the expertise? If that happened to be Mr. Gathercole, that's fine. Hire him, but he provides this information on a contract basis, and when he's done, he's done. He's finished; he's gone. Then we don't have to go through the process of his $130,000 severance -- whoever negotiated it -- and everybody saying government has all this money to throw around. It's easy to get.... I shouldn't say it's easy, but it's possible to get good consulting to put together that kind of information. I wonder why the government would not use that process instead of the process they used.
Hon. A. Edwards: I think Mr. Gathercole put together enough good information that we're almost thinking that was his task. His task was to consult broadly with British Columbians and to make sure it was a full process that would have the trust of British Columbians. What he in fact did was bring in background information so that people had access to it. Once they had access to the information, then they could have input into our energy policy, with them ultimately coming back to the ministry for policy.
It was not intended originally -- and certainly I as the minister did not intend it -- to be a temporary position. What happened is the kind of thing that happens in budgeting, where you look at what's going on, and you say: "Look, we can't afford to have this done. This task is over, so we will end the council."
Mr. Gathercole did an excellent job. There are very few people in this province who could have got the people throughout the province who have an interest in energy to feed that input to him. He could get good information, get the latest information to them and draw opinions back from them, and he put together energy ideas and energy directions that have kept energy from being a controversial issue in this province for the last four years.
There's no question that we have not had huge arguments about energy in B.C. in the last while, and I think that's because the people have been able to have their say. They have been involved, and Mr. Gathercole is an expert in that kind of activity. That was the kind of person we needed to lead the Energy Council.
R. Neufeld: First, I'm not disputing Mr. Gathercole's findings or his reports -- none of that. I'm sure there is some good information there for all British Columbians. I don't think, though, that he was the lightning rod that took away all discussion about energy within the province or that Mr. Gathercole was that important to what takes place in the whole scope of things or that he had anything to do with that. Other than Kemano, I don't remember a lot of talk other than what was happening in the Columbia, and I don't think Mr. Gathercole had anything to do with that.
A hired consultant would also have trust. It amazes me that the minister would think that you have to hire someone like Mr. Gathercole, who did have ties with the New Democratic Party, to show trust in British Columbia. That doesn't say a lot for the consulting people within the province.
Second, I guess the real point that I'm trying to get at is the fact that ordinary British Columbians read in the newspaper about severance pay for a person who worked for government for two and a half years -- and who was tied closely with government previously in his political life -- receiving $50,000 severance a year on average for a two-and-a-half-year job. I think that's where the trust comes out of the whole thing, because I think people view that as not quite cricket. That's better than the average salary of people working for government full-time. All of a sudden, we hire a person for two and a half years, who puts together a few reports, and we pay him $130,000, and I'm not sure if that's all of it. Is there anything on top of that we're not aware of? Does he receive any pension benefits on top of that, and are those costs going to accrue to the government?
[5:00]
The ordinary British Columbian -- and I'm sure the minister must have heard this before -- really gets upset with governments of all stripes when they do these kinds of things. Whether Mr. Gathercole was going to stay around forever is really not the issue. If we were focusing on getting some information, we could have gone out and gotten that information. We wouldn't have to deal with the issues that you are dealing with now: his employment, his pay-out, his pensions and all the things that go along with it.
Hon. A. Edwards: I sometimes wonder if we as MLAs are the right people to talk about pay or remuneration. We are often sort of flabbergasted by levels of pay.
Interjection.
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, as an MLA, it definitely is. However, that is part of the way the world goes. I was interested the other day to hear a Reform MP suggest that they should get $150,000 a year -- no benefits, of course, but $150,000 a year. I don't know. Where is the level?
I would still argue strongly for having a person appointed to that position, because I think the position wasn't simply to gather information. It wasn't simply to go out and gather information from people or to gather information from research, and so on. It was to do a combination of all those things, to talk to British Columbians and to make sure that there was a good process that worked, and he had the ability and skills to do that.
[ Page 14230 ]
As I said, what happens with government situations is that sometimes something begins, and it can't go ahead as we had thought. So I would say that under the circumstances, Mr. Gathercole did the kind of work that a deputy minister does. He was paid at the level of.... I'm not even sure if he had a pension or not, but certainly he had no special consideration. Having done the work and having been appointed at the level of a deputy minister, he was treated as a deputy minister.
R. Neufeld: Going on to a different subject and back to coal, I believe the minister has made -- I could be wrong -- two trips overseas on Asian trade missions to deal with new interests in coal, as the news release states. Maybe, just for my benefit, the minister could tell us what transpired. Was she capable of finding new markets for our coal in British Columbia on those two trips? Or were they just trips to reinforce that British Columbia does have coal and that we will supply it, and those types of things? What were the reasons behind the trips and what were the successes?
Hon. A. Edwards: I hate to use the term, but I was going to say the core of my visit was to look at coal issues. The first time I went -- which was not in the last budget; it was in 1992 -- was to deal with restoring confidence because of the bankruptcy of Westar and how that affected the southeast.
My second visit, which was in June of last year, was mainly to go over and talk about what we want to happen for coal in the northeast and to make sure that we were talking to the companies, that the lines of communication were open, that the customers knew that this government is eager to have contracts for our northeast companies and that they continue to have access to the markets over there. That was one thing. The other thing that was probably most useful for what we went for was talking about the expansion and the markets for Quinsam Coal, which is a thermal coal producer and something quite different.
Industry, by the way, went with us. The president of the Canadian Coal Association went with us on the last trip in June. It was certainly a very clear indication to our Asian customers -- and they are significant customers -- that the industry has the support of government and that we are working together. So I think we got that message across.
Of course, we did other things. We talked to companies such as.... As a matter of fact, I visited Marubeni, Sumitomo and Mitsubishi. As you know, these companies are all investing in British Columbia now -- creating jobs here at home and making our industry better. I think it has already made a significant difference that the minister went. When I went the first time, it was the first time ever that an Energy and Mines minister had been to visit Korea, and it was more than ten years since a minister had been in Japan. That is despite the fact that this province's mineral products make up more than 20 percent of all of Canada's trade with both Japan and Korea. Obviously it is a significant commodity, and nobody had been there.
I went there, and I visited the companies and the governments. We talked about the possibilities for greater investment. We made an agreement for the Korea Mining Promotion Corporation, which is a government corporation, to come over here and continue to talk with us and look for opportunities for investment. Generally we talked copper smelters on the first trip; we talked LNG plants on the second trip -- maybe a bit on the first one too, but more about LNG on the second one. I think those discussions do lead to the continuing economic trade that is happening between this province and those countries.
R. Neufeld: I agree with the minister; I think those kinds of trips are necessary for governments to make. I just wanted a brief recap of what transpired, the reasons and what successes were made.
I want to get back to a little bit of cogeneration. If my memory serves me correctly, around the time of the election there was a proposal for a coal-fired plant in the Kootenays for the generation of electricity. The minister talked about the fact that she would like to see electricity generated by coal, and with the technology from the clean coal that we have and those kinds of things, I know it is possible. I too would like to see it; I'm certainly not opposing it. It just surprised me that the minister said that we have had no proposals for coal-fired generation of electricity, when I'm sure I remember one proposal for the Kootenays. But through actions of the government to stop all projects or tell all IPPs -- independent power producers -- that no more projects would be acceptable until Mr. Gathercole was finished with his energy review....
Since then, has the minister approached the companies that were responsible for initiating it to put their proposal back in for generation of electricity with coal in the Kootenays?
Hon. A. Edwards: You are absolutely correct in saying that there were some proposals. One project, in fact, was studied by B.C. Hydro in a request for proposal in 1990, I believe. That was the Fording Coal project. There was another proposal by Westar Coal. In fact, they put a bid into that request for proposal as well, although they weren't successful in getting much response, and they certainly weren't nearly as far along with their project as Fording Coal was.
I've done a lot of work to ensure that Fording Coal has an audience with the Ministry of Environment. Their point is that they object to our air emission standards. I have made it so that they can come with us to make a presentation to the Ministry of Environment and talk about why we should change that particular requirement.
That hasn't happened, and I continue, definitely, to talk to the Fording people about coal projects. There was no halt to all independent power projects, unless they were planning to export; that was what we put a halt to. We said we were going to have the specific request sent to the Energy Council for their response before we considered any proposals for selling electricity outside the province. That took a little longer than we had hoped, but definitely the independent power producers were working with the Energy Council. They went along with the time it took, and we got a proposal.
We found out from the people of British Columbia that there were some good benefits from exporting electricity and that if they met certain requirements, we should be exporting electricity. I don't believe that was the mood before we began that process, because a lot of people simply said: "No, we don't want to export electricity." That came from a lot of history that you and I could go into for a long time, but it was there. And after the process, the Energy Council was able to say to us: "The people of British Columbia are saying that with these particular conditions, you should be able to export electricity."
[ Page 14231 ]
We put everything in place. Independent power producers are now free to export, and B.C. Hydro and Powerex will be working with them to assist them in getting markets down there, in shaping their power and in doing all the things that are needed if they're going to find markets outside B.C.
R. Neufeld: As I recall, the opposition to the export of electricity in British Columbia had to do with the building of large dams, not specifically with independent power producers. Whether it was Westcoast in Fort St. John developing it with natural gas or Fording Coal developing it with coal in the Kootenays, those types of power generation certainly benefit those areas and the province tremendously.
The big discussion that I would like to reiterate to the minister was over the fact that people didn't want to see another Site C. They didn't want to see another dam on the Peace. They didn't want to see another dam on the Columbia system. They didn't want to see the great environmental impact that we have had in the past. That doesn't say that it was right or wrong, because I don't know where British Columbia would be today if we didn't have those projects.
I think that was the discussion -- not whether we should export power. The discussion was over building dams to export power. I think people across the province.... I talk to lots of them in my area who have no problem with generating power from natural gas, specifically from my area -- and I'm sure it's the same in your area with coal -- and sending that power across the line. It only makes good common sense. We export natural gas in tremendous quantities across the line. It goes across the line only about 25 miles, and there are all kinds of plants generating electricity.
I've always said that we should generate that electricity even if it has to be in the lower mainland. It could even be done in the Cariboo. Get the gas that far, because there is a problem with pipeline capacity. Let them generate the power and send it south.
I think the Fording project would be very viable for the province of British Columbia. I think the government made a tremendous error when they shut down all IPPs -- because that's what they did. The only IPPs that were allowed to go ahead were the ones that were at a certain stage. I can't remember what the stage was, but they had to be fairly far advanced before they were allowed to go ahead. I think what we have now, because we have imported hydro from Alberta -- and a fair amount of it -- to keep us going and to keep the Williston reservoir up to an acceptable level.... We could really have jeopardized a lot of things that could happen in British Columbia. Putting IPPs on line is not going to be a simple process.
The minister already talked about air emissions in the Environment ministry. To get proposals through even just the Environment ministry could take a year or two, and it takes a while to build the projects. All of that takes quite a while, and in the meantime we're running short of electricity and could run short again this year and import more hydro from Alberta. So I think it was a dramatic error in judgment by this government, when they were first elected to office, to shut down IPPs on the premise that people in British Columbia did not want to sell power or export power to the U.S. Other than those people who didn't want large dams built in British Columbia to export power to the U.S., I can remember no opposition to coal- or natural-gas-generated power.
[5:15]
As for the air emissions that Fording is having trouble with in the plant down in the Kootenay; how far along is that? Is the ministry actively working with the Minister of Environment to try and solve that problem so we can go ahead with that project?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'd certainly disagree with you. I agree that the Site C dam was central to people's objection to exporting electricity. But poll after poll was saying that people objected, therefore, to the export of electricity. I assure you that I didn't find a single independent power producer who was willing to be the lightning rod for the first export hearing. What I wanted to do was get a policy and a situation in place where people weren't going to end up being that lightning rod. The independent power producers understood that.
We got the policy. The Energy Council talked to people and came back with this report, and we have the policy and the position in place and the whole thing. So generally I would object very much to suggestions that the people really didn't mind. People don't mind where you live and where I live, but that's not what is going to happen to the whole province. In your area you want to use gas because that's where they produce it. In my area we want to use coal because that's where we produce it. So suggesting that a coal plant would have no trouble.... Again, I think there's a whole lot of what I call prejudice out there against coal. If it's coal, just don't think about it -- don't even talk about it. That's a problem that we deal with. You're suggesting that it would take forever to contract it, but I think I'll leave that right now.
We can't go too fast with independent power projects, because if you get too much power, you are putting those projects in a very, very difficult situation. In Ontario, Quebec and certainly in a large number of states in the U.S., they've had to decontract with independent power producers because their load growth didn't grow enough. Those producers were sitting there with those plants and no market for their power. We've tried to be very, very careful that we don't set up a situation like that.
What's happening with Fording Coal? No, they have never come to us to talk about the issue of emissions. As I say, I talk to them regularly. They say they're still interested in doing a plant, and I don't know, based on social costing processes, whether or not it would be excellent. It could be a good project. I'm really not sure how it would come out, because it didn't. We were thinking of site-specific emission requirements. That's the kind of thing we were willing to look at. Right now there isn't anything. They did not put in a proposal to the recent Hydro request for proposals, so they're not there.
R. Neufeld: I'm going to leave that subject with a comment about signing off with independent power producers in eastern Canada. There's another issue where government is playing Big Brother. Do we have to watch over Westcoast to see whether they're spending their money right? Do we have to watch over Mitsubishi to see if they're spending their money right? They're obviously not going to build these plants if they don't have some long-term exports and long-term sales. I think that's part of the mistake that government makes. We want to be too sure that we are not going to have a plant shut down at some time in the future and maybe do not allow some of that activity to take place. It could be that it will shut down in the future.
[ Page 14232 ]
If Mitsubishi has done the studies, let them go ahead. They put a big plant in Fort Nelson to make chopsticks, financed by them. If it shuts down, I guess it shuts down through economics -- not having the sales for the chopsticks. I don't know. But I don't think that we as government should be worried about the financial end of whether Mitsubishi is going to be viable or not.
I want to deal a little bit with Windy Craggy. Again, I am going back to the 1992-93 annual report that has to do with mapping. I'm going to read: "Mapping programs include the Stikine, Tatlow, Coast Mountains and Tatshenshini areas of northwestern B.C." I just wonder if that mapping that was done for the Tatshenshini.... The decision to turn it into a park was made in June 1993. The reason for the mapping obviously was for ore, I would assume. Would it be for the whole area that was set aside -- the whole Tatshenshini park per se -- or was it just the site where Windy Craggy is right now? Are there maps or is there information available for opposition members to find out what other high-grade ore bodies were in the Tatshenshini?
Hon. A. Edwards: The geological exploration we did in that area was done in 1992. We did map all of the Haines triangle. We gave that information to the commissioner of resources and environment before he gave us his report on land use. There is more information yet to come out of that mapping, and it will be coming out later this year. We have done more interpretation.
R. Neufeld: There's a lot of Placer gold mining that took place in the Tatshenshini. I know people from Fort Nelson who were up there doing an awful lot of gold mining. Would the ministry, in its mapping, have looked at those areas so that it can set some kind of compensation for those miners who lost their claims?
Hon. A. Edwards: I was going to clarify that the information we will continue to bring forward was beyond the borders of the actual park. We need more information there.
The kind of mapping that we would do here would not be that useful for compensation discussions, but we have done some site-specific work to assist us in our discussions on the compensation.
R. Neufeld: Is your ministry actively involved in compensation negotiations with the mining industry -- not just Windy Craggy, but all the small operations that were going on in that area?
Hon. A. Edwards: Yes. As you are aware, the negotiations are being done for the Ministry of Parks. They're being led by the Ministry of Attorney General, and our ministry provides technical information and support.
R. Neufeld: I have just another question or two about Windy Craggy. At Windy Craggy an airstrip was constructed -- a substantial airstrip. I'm under the impression.... In fact, someone called me and said that the government of B.C. is asking that the airstrip be torn up -- I guess destroyed.
I wonder at the value of doing something like that, specially coming from the north. I've spent a lot of time flying the north in my business, working for others. I can tell you that an airstrip in that kind of country is awfully handy for someone in trouble. You can find all kinds of airstrips throughout the north that haven't been decommissioned and that are there. Some have been there since the Second World War and are still used, specifically by small exploration companies or just by people sightseeing or flying around.
I wonder if the ministry would have any input into that -- unless you already knew -- or could, now that you've been apprised of the situation, work with Environment to see if that airstrip could be saved, if it's already not decommissioned.
Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly agree with you that those airstrips can be quite useful. If they've been there, they might as well stay there. It's not been something our ministry has been involved with, but we will look into it.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I have a lot of questions yet, dealing with natural gas, which we certainly won't complete today. I don't know whether the Liberal member has any more questions that he wants to ask today or....
D. Jarvis: I thought my friend over there was going to continue on, so I put everything away. Just quickly, I would like to ask the minister: did you make a recommendation to the committee that was making the decision on the Tatshenshini as to what you felt the mineral situation was in the Haines triangle?
Hon. A. Edwards: The committee that made that decision was cabinet, and yes, I made quite sure that cabinet members were well aware of the mineral potential in the Haines triangle.
D. Jarvis: I'm still wildly looking for the piece of paper that I had here which had a bunch of little notes on.
Given the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:27 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]