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)
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 20, Number 1
[ Page 14293 ]
The House met at 10:08 a.m.
Prayers.
C. Serwa: This morning I am very pleased to welcome a group of 49 grade 7 students who are here in Victoria to see how the Legislature works and to view the wonderful things in Victoria. The students are accompanied by 17 adults and their teacher, Mrs. S. Gibbs. They are students of the Kelowna Christian School, a remarkable school in my community where parents, administrators, teachers and staff all work together for the benefit of the students. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Sawicki: In addition to introductions, I know that from time to time members have used this period to pay tribute to someone who has passed away and to ask you, hon. Speaker, to send a letter of condolence to the family. With your indulgence, I would ask the members of the House to acknowledge the passing of one of my constituents and a very well known and well respected trade unionist, Don Garcia.
Don was a longshore worker for 45 years, and he was the president of the Canadian area of the ILWU for three different terms, for a total of 14 years, until his retirement in 1991. He also held many other posts, including being on the executive of the B.C. Fed and was one of the founding labour members of WESTAC. When I asked one of his brothers, Doug Sigurdson -- also one of my constituents and the president of the ILWU Ship and Dock Foremen's Local 514 -- what Don would be best remembered for, he said that he was one of the most democratic and fair-minded trade union leaders that he had known. That's a tribute with which I hope all members in this House could identify.
I thank you for this time, hon. Speaker, and would ask that you send a letter on behalf of the House to his family.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock rises on a matter.
W. Hurd: I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to move a motion that the House do now adjourn to deal with a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the withdrawal of the Bonneville Power Administration from the Columbia River Treaty, which will result in the immediate loss of $250 million from this year's budget. It will further result in potential damage to the economy of the Kootenays and to British Columbia as a whole.
As we know, yesterday the Bonneville Power Administration announced that it would not be proceeding with an agreement between the province of British Columbia and the company for the return of downstream benefits. The company has claimed the memorandum of negotiations agreement is non-binding and that this provides the company with the ability to terminate the agreement and return to the original terms and conditions of the 1964 Columbia River Treaty agreement. The government of British Columbia claims that the agreement with the BPA is legally binding and suggests that it may pursue litigation to enforce its rights.
Regardless, the collapse of this agreement creates a definite matter of urgent public importance to the people of British Columbia. The failure to conclude this agreement leaves the province short by $250 million in this current budget year and calls into serious question the veracity of the very debate on spending estimates in this chamber. It also places in jeopardy the government's announced 20-year debt reduction plan. Since truth in budgeting and debt and deficit reduction are matters of urgent public interest to all British Columbians, this debate in the people's representative chamber must continue. The voices of the people must be heard on this issue through their elected representatives.
Secondly, the Premier of British Columbia....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The statement so far has made it quite clear what the intent of your motion is. I would caution the hon. member not to enter into the specifics of the debate beyond making the application. Could you summarize and conclude?
W. Hurd: Clearly the matter impacts severely not only the people of the Kootenays but also the entire province of British Columbia. We believe that it provides a clear mandate under standing order 35 for an adjournment of this House to deal with this urgent and pressing matter.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I share with the opposition the concern over the action -- I call it an outrageous action -- of this American corporation. I must respectfully submit to you, though, that unfortunately the motion as framed does not meet the narrow criteria of standing order 35. It is a matter of public policy that this government takes very seriously and that we are managing with legal counsel and with negotiators. On the narrow test, I regrettably think that it fails. However, I think that there is a solution here that we ought to seize on. This outrageous action by this American corporation against the interests of citizens who live in the Kootenays, as the member said, and against the economic interests of all British Columbians needs debate. Therefore I would suggest to members opposite that they ask their House Leader to meet with ours in the very near future, and with members of other parties as well, to see if we can draft a motion that can be the subject of debate promptly in this House. I think this is an outrageous action. It needs to be debated. I do not think the motion fits the narrow criteria of standing order 35. In closing, hon. Speaker, I would ask you to rule on whether it is a matter for urgent debate. Clearly the government will participate, whatever your ruling is. I believe there is a way to debate this issue and get around the constrictions of rule 35.
J. Weisgerber: I want to rise and speak in favour of the motion. It seems to me that this is an important issue. It's an issue that crosses a number of different ministry boundaries. It's an issue that affects the budget. It affects legislation brought in by this government with respect to the Columbia Basin Trust Act. It is an issue that is in front of the British Columbia public today. It's an issue that we have to have an opportunity to speak to from the British Columbia perspective, not necessarily in a partisan way, but to demonstrate to the people with whom we're dealing in the United States -- Bonneville and others -- that British Columbians are not happy with the kinds of tactics we're seeing. Also, we want to have an opportunity to put on the record the concerns we have around the way the government has handled the fiscal part of this whole equation.
[ Page 14294 ]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, leader of the fourth -- not quite yet -- party.
[10:15]
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, if the member for Okanagan West and the member for Chilliwack were to join us, we'd be fourth in an instant.
I rise on this rather important issue in support of the position taken by the official opposition. I can tell you that I've spent some of my morning on the phone talking to people who are living in the Kootenays or who are elected members to regional government in the Kootenays to find out and try and gauge what the reaction of the people in the Kootenays is to the news that has come forward today. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that they believe this to be an urgent matter; they believe this to be a matter that is desperately in need of urgent debate in this legislative chamber. They want to know where every elected member stands on this issue, where the government stands on this question and what we're going to do about it.
I don't think that delay on this matter is what is needed now, and I don't think some drafting of some other motion is necessary. The standing rules clearly provide for this to be an opportunity for debate. The people in the Kootenays and all of the people of British Columbia would like to know the position of this government and of the opposition members of this House on this question.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the Chair wants to thank all members. I'm not going to accept any more submissions at this time. I am pleased that members have brought a variety of views and suggestions as to how to address the motion that is before me. I will certainly take it under advisement and bring back my decision.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A to consider the Ministry of Health; and in Section B, in the main House, I call the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).
The Chair: I would call the committee to order and ask those members whose demanding jobs require them to be elsewhere to go elsewhere to complete those jobs.
Hon. J. Cashore: At the outset today I would like to make a statement with regard to using this as an opportunity to welcome Alec Robertson as the new chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission. Our government is committed to a policy of negotiating honourable and just settlements with first nations on behalf of British Columbia, and Mr. Robertson brings a wealth of experience to the position of chief commissioner. He has been a partner in the Vancouver law firm of Davis and Co. since 1971; his practice concentrates on business law and natural resource law, with primary interests in forestry and administrative law. He received both a bachelor of commerce and a bachelor of law degree from the University of British Columbia, and a master of law from the Harvard Law School, and was admitted into practice in 1959. We are fortunate to have someone of such high calibre in the treaty negotiation process.
The work of the Treaty Commission is essential in forging fair, honourable and lasting settlements. Set up in 1992 by the First Nations Summit and the federal and provincial governments, the commission advises and facilitates treaty negotiations, as well as allocates money for first nations' negotiation needs. To date, the commission has accepted statements of intent from 43 first nations and has earned its place as the keeper of the process.
For his new role as head of the commission, Mr. Robertson will be able to draw from an impressive list of professional credentials. He is the president and a director of the Vancouver bar association, the president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and a director of the Continuing Legal Education Society of B.C., the chair and governor of the Law Foundation of B.C., and a member of the advisory committee on women in the legal profession. As well, he is a member of the Canadian Bar Association's national task force on gender equality in the legal profession, and co-author of its report entitled Touchstones for Change. He is a member of the advisory committee to the dean of law at the University of British Columbia, and he is the recipient of the certificate of merit from the Law Society of British Columbia and the distinguished service award from the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Bar Association. Mr. Robertson's expertise, wisdom and leadership will indeed be great assets to the treaty negotiation process.
He joins two new commissioners, First Nations Summit representative Wilf Adam and federal government representative Dr. Peter Lusztig. The three will be able to count on the benefit of the experience of both the current commissioners, Carole Corcoran from the First Nations Summit and Barbara Fisher from British Columbia. I would particularly like to thank commissioner Barbara Fisher for her contribution as acting Commissioner since December last year, when she took over the responsibility from Chief Commissioner Chuck Connaghan.
On behalf of the Premier and this government, I wish the commission great success and would like to welcome Mr. Robertson and the other new members to their new positions and the challenge they accept with it.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister a few questions, going back over one or two questions that came up back around May 3 or 4. Unfortunately, I didn't get an opportunity to continue the questioning, nor was I able to in some instances during this last couple of weeks, due to the fact that I had Energy estimates in another room in the building. We can't be in two places at once, unfortunately. Being the critic for Energy, I had to be there.
It was with regard to the question of fee simple and private property, leases, etc. I just want to get some clarification, if you wouldn't mind. I hope the minister understands that I'm not trying to entrap him. I'm trying to get a specific understanding, because I was at meetings on the weekend
[ Page 14295 ]
and people ask me these questions. I really am unable to give a specific clarification. They keep bringing up questions. I think if we're going to have any agreement with the non-aboriginal people in this province and any kind of acceptance as to what is going on with land claims with the aboriginal people, we have to have a specific clarification. They have to have a better understanding, because there is a great void out there, I'm afraid.
So I was wondering if he could.... I recall back on May 4, when I asked him if private property was on the table, that the minister definitely said private property was not on the table. I asked him, therefore, if, when we are referring to fee simple property, leases and licences are included as private property. And he said that licences and leases are not considered private property but that they would be treated under the terms and conditions of all provincial leases and licences. So if you have a lease or licence on a mineral claim, for example -- a subsurface situation.... When he says they will be treated accordingly, does that mean on the expiry of the leases and/or licences, even though they are registerable items under the standard fee simple system that we have in this province -- that they could be terminated on the end of the renewal of that, and that'll be subject to the aboriginal band at the time that supposedly the government...we have agreed to give them that section of land?
If he can clarify again what fee simple means, as far as the treaty organization's interpretation is.... From what I understand, fee simple in the government's point of view is not the same as the fee simple that I interpret fee simple to be. On my own private property I have fee simple title, and if I fail to pay the taxes to the Crown -- because the Crown is the overlying body -- the Crown can take my property away for failure to pay taxes. Will the same subjects be applicable to the aboriginal fee simple title?
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, my understanding of the definition of fee simple land is that this is land to which the holder owns a title deed document -- ownership of fee simple land.
With regard to first nations, I have said in the House under different phases of questioning that we see the current Indian reserve land, and those small portions of lands that will be added to those as part of a treaty settlement, as being the equivalent to fee simple. In terms of the hon. member's question, it would really function as fee simple land. As could be the case with a municipality, the first nation could receive tax moneys from those lands to be able to pay for the cost of services in a similar way to a municipality. Since the provincial Crown would hold underlying title to this land, that land would then accede to the provincial Crown if a first nation went bankrupt.
D. Jarvis: The minister didn't answer on the specific question of licensing and leases. If he would clarify that, it would be appreciated.
Hon. J. Cashore: The terms and conditions of existing leases and licences on Crown land will be met. Treaties will clarify the rights and responsibilities of first nations on non-aboriginal communities with regard to settlement land. The position of the province that we will be taking to the table is that leases and licences should not be expropriated as a result of treaty negotiations.
[10:30]
D. Jarvis: I'm going to jump to another subject, if you wouldn't mind, on aboriginal.... Sometimes I hesitate to bring this up, because people jump to conclusions as to how I feel about it. It's in regard to the Windy Craggy mineral claims up in the Haines triangle, which I understand is also part of the claim being made by the Champagne-Aishihik band.
Back in October I had an opportunity to converse with the chief of the Champagne-Aishihik at that time, Paul Birckel, and through the mail as well, regarding the province's attitude as to this area being a wilderness, being made into a heritage site. He was not prepared to accept the fact that this should be a heritage site, in view of his pending claim with the province. He had asked the Premier in October to withdraw the world heritage nomination.
Subsequent to that, I understand, there was a meeting held in Victoria on December 5, in which Mr. Birckel, yourself and the Premier -- and probably other staff -- met to decide on this situation. I was informed at that time that Chief Paul Birckel was informed by the government that this was not a valid mineral claim in the Windy Craggy area of the Tatshenshini, and that the specific mine and other mines that were being talked about, or the wealth that was supposedly being created in that area, was basically a flash in the pan -- a promotion by the VSE. At that time, Mr. Birckel said that he would, basically on a without-prejudice basis, agree that if that were so, he would sign off and approve of the government asking the federal government to give it heritage status in the United Nations. Up to that time, the Canadian government, under Mr. Irwin, had stated that it would not approve British Columbia's application until such time as the Indian band in that area had signed off as well. I wonder if the minister could advise us as to what was actually said in that meeting in Victoria on December 5. Did he actually tell the Champagne-Aishihik band that there was no value in that area of the Tatshenshini?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't recall the discussion being with regard to the value of the Tatshenshini area in relation to mining. If that is the recall of somebody who was there, I'm prepared to be reminded of what that discussion was. It's my understanding that those discussions happened many months before that, and that they happened in the context of a meeting that I attended in Whitehorse about two or three weeks after I became the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I attended with the then Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Subsequent to that, there have been meetings with Chief Paul Birckel and Mr. David Joe on two or three occasions. Then there was another meeting in Whitehorse about, I'd say, 15 months ago. It's my understanding that.... The meeting that we held was a meeting in which Chief Birckel and several of his councillors and the Premier and I discussed certain aspects of the designation. It's my understanding, coming out of that meeting, that there was agreement, and there was an understanding that the government would proceed with its movement toward that designation.
D. Jarvis: I don't know how to say this, but it seems to me that there's considerable deception -- maybe outright lies -- on what's going on here. There was a specific meeting on December 5. The chief of the Champagne-Aishihik has stated -- unless we're calling him a liar -- that he came to town so
[ Page 14296 ]
that the government could persuade the chief to drop his opposition to nominating this as a heritage park. Following that meeting of December 5, the chief has dropped his objection to it and has stated openly to people that he was told in that meeting -- at which you, the Premier and staff, I assume, were present -- that there were no anomalies in the Tatshenshini area that were of any value. On that basis, he was prepared to sign off and give it heritage status on a without-prejudice basis.
Is the minister stating that the statement was not made by Birckel? Is he stating that there was no statement made to him? What convinced him to suddenly, 25 days before it was required to be signed off or else it couldn't go to the United Nations for heritage status -- the Haines triangle...? What did happen?
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I don't think it's helpful to get into a triangulated discussion about somebody's interpretation of what Chief Paul Birckel said. I just want the hon. member to know that our government has a respectful relationship with Chief Paul Birckel, and that relationship is in the context of current, ongoing transboundary negotiations. I don't accept that there's any misrepresentation of what I've said or of what he has said. I know that Chief Paul Birckel is very well aware that discussions are ongoing with Windy Craggy with regard to the compensation issue. So I really don't know where the hon. member is going with this point. But I just want to assure him that we are involved in a respectful relationship, through the transboundary negotiations, with Chief Birckel, and those are ongoing.
D. Jarvis: I'll say this. Back in 1992 the Haines triangle was mapped out by the geology department of your Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry. All the information that was obtained from there showed that there were heavy anomalies of gold, cobalt and copper in the area and that it was probably one of the richest areas in North America. This information was given to the CORE agreement people -- to Owen of CORE -- and it was given to the cabinet. So we know, on that premise, that this is a very rich area. We're not talking about compensation now; we're talking about how the aboriginal band said that they were not prepared to sign this off for heritage status in the United Nations. The chief has adamantly said that. There is correspondence to that effect. But he was called down to Victoria on December 5 and told he should sign off because the fact that there was value in that area as far as minerals go was just a promotion by the VSE. He said: "Okay. If I believe you on that premise, I will sign off." That was the only way this government could have got that wilderness area a United Nations heritage status. There was only one way they could do it; they had to have the agreement. As the federal Indian Affairs minister said, they have to have the Champagne-Aishihik in full agreement, or the province's opportunity to have that promoted as a wilderness park will have to be stopped or cancelled. The federal government is the one that pursues it to the United Nations. So he came down on December 5, he talked to you and the Premier, and he went back and said: "I have signed off on a without-prejudice basis. " Now he says: "I regret it."
Will the minister say what he told the chief, or what the Premier told the chief, or what one of the staff told him? What did they tell him to actually get him agree to sign off the Haines triangle?
Hon. J. Cashore: The comments the hon. member is making are not consistent with the fact that we are involved in ongoing talks. We're involved in a negotiation process; it's proceeding well. The meeting that took place in December was a meeting during which a framework agreement towards a transboundary agreement was initialled. I am not aware of the statements that are alleged to Chief Birckel. If the hon. member wants to send over a copy of correspondence or anything like that, it will help us understand where he's going with this point.
I should point out that with regard to the hon. member's reference to Mr. Irwin, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, there was a tripartite meeting April 5 and 6 in Whitehorse. I would expect from that tripartite meeting that there was a relationship taking place there in good faith among the three parties, including the federal government.
D. Jarvis: I shall send some letters on that one aspect alone. But Minister Irwin, in the federal government, has written to me -- and I have a letter on file -- saying that he would not propose the Tatshenshini-Haines triangle area as a heritage wilderness area to the United Nations until such time as the Champagne-Aishihik tribe is in complete agreement with the provincial government. I guess I'm not going to get any further with you on that aspect; it's quite obvious that you've dug your head into the sand and you're not going to tell us what actually went on during that meeting. Someone is fabricating the true statements that came out of that meeting, because we have two different people making two different statements. I hate saying that there's a great conspiracy, but I know full well that the government's attitude was to make this into a wilderness area. I agree that perhaps a portion of it could have been made into a wilderness area, but we have great wealth in this province that we have to use at one time or another in our lifespan.
So I would ask a question now: is the minister in agreement that if this is part of the Champagne-Aishihik's land claims, they will be able to use the resources in this area, or will the resources of the Haines triangle area be restricted in any land claims agreement that is made with the Champagne-Aishihik on the Haines triangle?
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member is aware that I have said in this House that where there are designations, they are made without prejudice to the treaty process. I have also said that the government will go into negotiations with very firm negotiating positions to protect protected areas. In the vast majority of these situations we believe there will be a mutuality in that, and that is certainly my understanding with regard to every conversation I've been involved in with the Champagne-Aishihik. The fact is that the Tatshenshini was meant to be a wilderness park, not an industrial park. Everything I've ever heard with regard to the desires of the elders of the Champagne-Aishihik is very much in support of that. If the hon. member has contrary information, it's certainly appropriate for him to make that information available, but some kind of documentation would be helpful.
I don't agree with the hon. member's characterization when he suggests that where he has a certain interpretation of events it means that somebody must not be telling the truth. He needs to be more clear with regard to his interpretation of events, but he has one way of characterizing that. We have to recognize that in making a land use decision about the Tat-
[ Page 14297 ]
shenshini this government very proudly put itself on record with regard to where it stands. Two days after that decision, this hon. member stood up in the House and said it was okay to mine in class A parks. He has put on record his party's position with regard to that, and that's good. That's a very clear statement, and that hon. member will no doubt want to defend that statement and support it and emphasize it, as he indicates to the people where he stands.
The fact is, hon. member, I think that there is an agreement to disagree. With regard to the Tatshenshini, we have taken our stand, and we are prepared to defend that stand. It's also our view that the Champagne-Aishihik are very much in support of working with us in order to develop the master plan agreement with regard to the management of that park.
[10:45]
D. Jarvis: I will say, Mr. Minister, that that's really how I feel about what's going on in this government with regard to negotiations with the Indian band and that December 5 meeting, if that's how you interpret what I said about mining in parks. I have never at any time specifically said that we would mine class A parks. I said that I did not feel there was anything wrong with mining in parks, provided it was done in a responsible manner. We now mine in parks in this province, and we do it in a responsible way. Mining is done in parks in other jurisdictions in the world, and if it is done in a responsible way there should be nothing wrong with it. In a lot of cases, mining in parks would not be advisable, but in a lot of cases there's nothing wrong with it if it's done in a responsible way. And the minister would have to finish off his statements when he makes statements such as that.
I would jump off on a tangent by saying that Westmin, for example.... The minister brought up the fact that I recommended mining in parks. I just want to clarify with the minister that his government approves of mining in parks by allowing Westmin to mine in Strathcona Park. Strathcona Park consists of 321 hectares. Of those 321 hectares, only 0.05 percent is impacted by a mine. As a result of the mine going in there and making roads, lots of people in this province have the advantage of going into this park.
Going to another subject, I would like to ask the minister if he could interpret for me what the necessity is for cleewillies in this province when it comes to.... I'm getting strange looks across the floor from the minister and his staff as to what cleewillies are. Cleewillies, I understand, are indentations in the ground. I have been informed that all the surveyors in this province have been told by their aboriginal departments that when they run into these cleewillies -- which are indents in circled areas where the aboriginals have either camped, or have had a summer home or something along that way -- they are required to note them on any plots or mapping that they make. It sort of struck my fancy that these cleewillies -- and I understand it's spelt c-l-e-e-w-i-l-l-y.... I was wondering if the minister has any idea what a cleewilly is -- and why?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm wondering if the hon. member is confusing Klee Wyck with keekwillies. If he's referring to keekwillies, they are covered under the Heritage Conservation Act. It is a law of general application of the province, and therefore if officials are designated through that act -- which is administered by another ministry -- to identify those areas because of their heritage significance....
I'm not sure what the point is, but I have visited, for instance, an area that is actually part of the traditional food-gathering site of the Stoney Creek people, up in the area where the Nechako and the Stuart rivers join together. It was a very interesting site, where some archaeological work was done back in the days of Professor Borden who, I think, founded the UBC school of archaeology. Something very significant was there in that old village site; it's stated by the elders that there was a great battle at one time. The village is there no longer, but it's still a summer food-gathering site. In the entire area of the former village site there isn't one tree growing, except in that one 25-square-foot plot that Professor Borden dug. It's also said that they found an ancient Chinese coin in that dig. So it's quite an interesting site, and I think much of this has been recorded. In the woods behind the site there are a number of these keekwillies, which I think were actually food caches that were part of the system. It was interesting to go and see that.
I would say that I think it is appropriate that it be covered within the Heritage Conservation Act. I understand that there are large sites in the Kamloops-Soda Creek area and at Adams Lake -- some of them are 1,000 years old. Studies have been done, and there have been other studies proposed. I think that it is part of the heritage of the province.
If the hon. member is, with his questioning, moving in a direction of whether this is a circumstance that is having an impact on the turnaround time on applications for leases and that sort of thing, it could well be. I would just point out to the hon. member, as I did the last time we were in estimates a few days ago, that I think there is a lot of representation -- sometimes, I think, actually by staff of some ministries -- indicating that the factors holding up the turnaround time on some of these referrals are because of the aboriginal people. I think that's really unfortunate. The fact is that the consultation that needs to be undertaken as a result of the Delgamuukw decision is yet one other factor in referrals. But referrals are already required to other entities, other than aboriginal people, that have been very much part of the experience -- for instance, the Lands department of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
When I was the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, long before the Delgamuukw consultation process was in place, I used to receive a lot of letters from people complaining about the length of time it took to get a turnaround on an application. So I do recognize that this Delgamuukw court decision is an added factor, and a very significant one. I'm not trying to say it isn't. But I just want to make very clear for the record that it's not the only referral process taking place in the province -- which sometimes causes frustration because of the time it takes. This is something that we're definitely addressing.
I just want to go back to some comments that the hon. member made about mining in parks. It's my very clear and distinct recollection that, two days after the Tatshenshini announcement, he stood up in question period and said it was the position of his party that it was okay to mine in class A parks. I think he should know that the Westmin example in Strathcona Park has been grandfathered. The process that was undertaken by the previous government and concluded by our government with regard to the resolution of Strathcona Park issues made that very, very clear. I believe that there's a pretty strong ethic out there with regard to not having mining in class A parks.
[ Page 14298 ]
But I'd be interested to hear the hon. member talk some more about that. I'm really interested in his views on it. That's one of the ways this debate can help to clarify where different people stand on different things. That is my very clear recollection, hon. member. I could stand corrected. Perhaps the hon. member might want to review Hansard from that time, but it was certainly my recollection that he stood up in this House and said it's the position of his party that mining in class A parks was acceptable.
D. Jarvis: I would be more than prepared to discuss anytime with the minister with regard to mining in this province, but it's quite obvious that the discussion shouldn't go on too long, because this minister, this government and the Energy and Mines ministry have a basically very closed mind with regard to mining in this province. They have openly stated that they are not prepared to see mining flourish in this province, and they'll use any method whatsoever at their disposal to curtail it. The fact is that when this government took over we had in excess of 30 productive mines in this province, and we're now down to 14 productive mines in this province, and they're rapidly dropping off.
The minister will probably get up and say at one time or another that maybe mining in this province is growing. Well, it's growing only because a few old mines have opened up, due to the fact that the American dollar has exceeded the Canadian dollar exceptionally or considerably and that the price of copper worldwide has risen dramatically. Where they used to make money at 95 cents a pound, the price is now up around $1.40 or $1.45 a pound, and the Canadian dollar has dropped down to the low 70s. Therefore it makes it viable for small old mines to be reopened up for a minimal amount of time.
Interjection.
D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you're trying to drive this back into the aboriginal situation. But I was trying to reply to the minister, who had asked me a question -- or maybe it was a challenge -- so that we could talk about mining, you see. So I took that opportunity when the minister brought it forward, to get up and maybe clarify things about mining in this province, which is in a disastrous state.
In fact, I'm wondering if we can, more or less, even discuss this government's situation in regard to signing contracts and maybe get down into the Columbia River situation, because the minister is getting ready to sign contracts with all the aboriginal tribes in this province. With the track record they have now with large contracts that we have seen, it's quite obvious that they don't know the difference between a memo of understanding and an agreement, and what you sign and don't sign, and what comes back to haunt you when you don't do a thorough job and you're not in the business. With no business experience or acumen in how you negotiate a contract.... Saying that, I'm not going to do what the minister wishes by falling into the trap of having my statements as to mining in this province misinterpreted by individuals who feel that it's to their benefit.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity to question the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I'll turn it over to our critic, the gentleman from Richmond Centre.
The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Richmond Centre, I would just advise the committee that we have indeed strayed far afield, much beyond the estimates. I almost feel the need to re-announce what we're voting on: this is the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
[11:00]
D. Symons: I'd like to follow the previous speaker and tunnel back to the topic of Aboriginal Affairs, particularly if we might go back to an item that I was asking the minister about back on May 3: the Craig Bay Estates development. Just to refresh the minister's memory, I asked if the minister could give us some indication of how they're going to resolve a question of this sort. The question I posed to him was based on the fact that Craig Bay Estates had bought the property in good faith and had clear title. Then they found that there were some aboriginal remains on the property, and they have got into a rather difficult situation with their development plans because of that situation.
If we carry on a little further, the minister said, in response to my question:
"What we are in the midst of here is a very complex issue where we are seeking to work with the parties to sort it out. The parties on both sides have made some genuine attempts, but I think we have to keep working with this to come up with a creative solution."
I went on to say:
"The government then bears some responsibility for any of the economic expenses that might have occurred to either of the parties."
I basically put the question to the minister again: how is the ministry dealing with this? What the minister basically said was that he wanted me to comment on some suggestions I would make as to how to see this issue managed. I indicated next:
"I appreciate the minister is attempting to dodge the responsibility they have when they're sitting on that side of the House. You are the minister in charge, not I; so the decisions that are to be made have to come from the minister and the government in charge, not the opposition."
Then I pressed again: "Can you give me an answer for my question?" The minister is quoted as saying: "I did answer it, hon. member." I didn't really hear an answer, other than that they're looking at it, and it's a difficult question. I would pose the question to the minister again.
I see that he has taken some rather firmer stands between the time of that discussion and now, and I admire the minister for taking that stand and indicating that possibly things weren't as represented by the band. Again I would say that Craig Bay Estates bought the property in good faith. Craig Bay Estates went ahead to do what they thought they were legally entitled to do, and they found out that they're now tied up in an aboriginal dispute. What we basically have here.... Are you really saying, in effect...? The government is trying to stay out and say: "We'll bring the two parties together and let them discuss it; we as a government really are not involved here as other than a facilitator for communications between the two parties."
I thought the government held title to land in the province. When you give fee simple title to people, the government is giving this and therefore has some responsibility. When people buy property, the government has some respon-
[ Page 14299 ]
sibility in the fulfilment of what they're purchasing. It seems that this is not the case there still, in spite of the minister's statements giving a little more credence to the fact that Craig Bay Estates has some valid points on their part. What the minister seemed to be saying in the responses I got the other time was: "If you buy any property in British Columbia, it's a 'buyer beware' situation. Something may come up tomorrow -- heritage, an aboriginal claim on that property or whatever -- and you're on your own, brother, if that's the case." Is that what the minister is saying? If not, what are you doing in order that Craig Bay Estates at least will not suffer financial loss because of the difficulty they found themselves in when they purchased this property, with the situation that's now going on in that area?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to give the members an update on the situation at that site. The fact is that the company and the band have reached an agreement; they have agreed to suspend court action in order to be able to seek to meet together and have ongoing dialogue while work continues. I would point out that, while the hon. member is rightly pointing out the property rights of the developer, that developer has come up against a situation that comes under the terms of the Heritage Conservation Act, which therefore gives some legal support to the first nation. On the other hand, there is a body of law that supports the fee simple ownership rights of the developer. Therefore, there are two parties that have elements of law on both sides. I congratulate them for having reached this agreement within the last few days that enables work to proceed while they continue to talk.
I think to characterize the government as having some kind of culpability in this is not correct. I think the government's role is to try to facilitate bringing parties together -- which we have tried to do. In the meantime, we have also tried to maintain respectful relationships with both of the parties. I believe that we have done that. There have been words said from time to time, but I think that given the dynamics of the circumstances.... Here we have a developer who needs to deliver with regard to contractual commitments within a certain period of time. He's really on the spot.
Another factor is that archeology seems to me to be more of an art than a science. The consultant who had originally reviewed that site came in with advice to the developer and the band that the situation would be borne out to be much less extensive than was actually the case. That, I think, created a difficulty for both the band and the developer. If you look at documents and correspondence from the initial stages of this site having been discovered, you would find that there was a very cordial working relationship at that time. What made it very difficult was when they became aware of just how extensive the site was where human remains were being found.
I don't know if the hon. member has had an opportunity to visit the site. He may wish to do so. I believe that both the first nations and the developer would welcome him there. It is a little disconcerting when you go there: you see ground that has been disturbed and you see bones of human beings sticking out in different places. It catches you and it's a bit startling.
So, hon. member, I commend you for raising concerns on behalf of the developer. The developer is a very good corporate citizen, and I have felt personally that he has been trying very hard to conduct his affairs in an appropriate manner. But I believe, as I said before, that each of the parties in this have something of a legal framework within which to work.
D. Symons: I must say that I'm really not pressing this on behalf of the developer. I have not spoken to the developer; I'm simply working from the press articles on this issue.
But it really goes further and deeper; I didn't want to stay just to Craig Bay Estates, because I think it goes deeper than that. The whole situation that occurs there could occur to anybody in this province who has bought property in good faith -- no matter what they're planning to do with it. Because of the situation that you say is the Heritage Conservation Act, if they find something in their property they could be put at a terrific economic disadvantage because of that particular act. What you basically answered to me was: yes, if you buy property you're doing it sort of on your own. It's a "buyer beware" situation in this province: you can buy the property, but if something turns up on the property we're not going to help you; we're going to stand back and maybe coordinate the activities between the two -- as you indicated, you brought the two together.
In this case it's rather fortunate that the two were cooperative with each other. But suppose they weren't; suppose it developed into a Oka situation. Where does the government stand in this? Where is its responsibility, in that, in effect, the government is the seller of the property initially? Somewhere along the line the property was bought from the Crown and then passed hand by hand along to the current owners. So that property was sold by the Crown sometime in the past, and has now ended up in the hands of a person who thought they had some development rights for the property, and they found out that because of what's going on here they are at an economic disadvantage. Leaving Craig Bay out of it, take that to any purchaser of property in this province. What responsibility does the government have in these matters when it turns out to be a heritage site or an aboriginal land claims dispute?
Hon. J. Cashore: It is not correct for the member to stand up in the House and say that we haven't done anything and that we have not taken responsibility. I am offended by that. The fact is that my assistant deputy minister, Randy Brant, has been on that site on a very regular basis for a year. I've been on the site twice. We have taken this issue in a very responsible and concerned way. There's no question about that, and it is inappropriate to say that we as a government have not addressed this issue. We have. We see our role as trying to facilitate an agreement where there are two parties involved in a situation where they have a legal framework supporting them on both sides of the issue.
I repeat that under the Heritage Conservation Act the first nations have considerations that are part of the law. On the other hand, developers have considerations under the framework of law that support their rights of ownership. With regard to his suggestion that these circumstances exist in other places within the province, I'm not quite clear why he would put this issue in the way that he does. It almost sounds as though he is saying that somehow the government of the day is responsible for the fact that there is a heritage of there having been pre-contact aboriginal communities where heritage sites have resulted.
I understand the purpose of the Heritage Conservation Act to be expressing a value of aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. There are a great many people who have a very real interest in being able to understand more about human history and anthropology and those kinds of understandings that
[ Page 14300 ]
create a better awareness of how our species has developed and emerged. So there is a strong public opinion -- not only from aboriginal people -- with regard to the need for legislation such as the Heritage Conservation Act. I also point out that the act does not only affect issues affecting aboriginal communities; there are other heritage sites throughout the province. What we have to do as a government is continue to do what we have been doing, and that is having a senior official such as Mr. Randy Brant on the site, working with the parties and keeping in close contact with them.
I find it somewhat upsetting that the hon. member refers to Oka. He might have framed his comment a little bit differently and acknowledged that because of the sensitive way in which it has been handled by government officials, we have avoided it escalating into the type of conflict that none of us wants to see within this province. I have the greatest admiration for those people who work within various elements of the public service in order to do that day-to-day work, where they're out there on the front lines and seeking to generate light instead of heat. I think that a situation like this is a good case in point.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
The hon. member has made a point that I think is accurate. If you were to go over to the heritage branch and look at a map of the eastern coast of Vancouver Island, and at the already known sites where middens and human remains are known to be, you would find that it's very extensive. Given the climate, that was a place for human habitation for a great many years, so he's quite right in saying that there are other areas where this type of site will come to bear. Indeed, I have actually seen a map which predated this development, where a designation on that site had been recorded in that information.
The hon. member refers to "buyer beware." I think we all know in our daily activities that if we make a purchase or if we go into a venture, there is an element of.... Maybe a better way of saying it, if we don't want to say "buyer beware," is that maybe there's an element of needing to do due diligence in the interest of the entrepreneurial aspect. But we need to learn from this, too; all of us do. The fact is that there is information available -- not all the information; there are some of these sites sleeping under the ground, and nobody knows about them yet; they won't be discovered until some kind of excavation starts. But there are very clear guidelines within the Heritage Conservation Act as to the steps that need to be taken when that kind of an event occurs. Also, I think we need to continue to encourage developers to seek out the information that already exists with regard to that possibility.
[11:15]
It certainly is the role of government to do everything that we can to ensure that fee simple title is not in jeopardy. The very basis of our land title system is that fee simple is warranted as being without claims unknown to the purchaser, and it is the case that people buy properties subject, for example, to railway claims, mining claims and zoning bylaws. The history of this province, in failing in the past to settle land claims by aboriginal people, means that now on some occasions, unresolved matters will arise; that's precisely why we are seeking to settle these issues through modern treaties.
D. Symons: I'm still not reassured by the minister's words, because I still hear the fact that indeed the government will coordinate the activities between the two -- what we might call aggrieved -- parties. I did not mean to imply earlier that the ministry has not done anything; I'm asking specifically where the ministry's responsibility is. It's not that it hasn't been trying hard to get these parties to work together, but it still seems that the minister is saying it's their responsibility. I'm not quite sure, but I do believe the Heritage Conservation Act is a fairly recent act. It is an act, then, that has impinged upon the developer here; it's an act that is an act of this particular government.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, if I might clarify that, no, it is not a recent act; it is a longstanding act. Let's make that very clear. It is true that there has been a recent amendment, but it is a longstanding act. I might also point out to the hon. member that the recent amendment was something this government did to recognize the developer's rights; that was one thing that was done.
I should also point out that the primary line ministry role with regard to the Heritage Conservation Act is the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. We see our role, as the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, as helping to facilitate, but we do not have the lead role. Even though we don't have the lead role, we have been present on a weekly basis.
D. Symons: I guess by "recent" I was referring to recent in relation to fee simple land title. In that sense, I think the Heritage Conservation Act came after fee simple land title was involved. I'll leave that one, because I think we've explored it far enough.
What I'd like to do for just a moment is lump my next three questions into one, because they all have an element in common. They all have in common the fact that they all involve aboriginal problems of title or various problems that they have. The way they try and highlight their problems to the public in general, or to press the government into action on them, is to set up a roadblock. So we find that.... As Highways critic I'd like to just explore that for a moment.
We find that, in Kamloops, in May of this year, we had an aboriginal roadblock on the east side of Adams Lake; in Merritt we had a roadblock at the Douglas Lake ranch; and we had Apex Alpine quite notably last January, going on for an extended period of time. All of these things have involved problems with something that may not necessarily relate to highways or roads at all but to another issue they have, and they use roadblocks as a method of highlighting their particular concerns with government or with developers or with any other issue. I'm just wondering if the minister can say.... I have some concerns, I think, that we use our highways in the province as a sort of pawn in the disputes that go on between aboriginals and the government.
Hon. J. Cashore: Some people say "roadblocks" and some people say "checkpoints," and I guess there's a continuum between checkpoint and roadblock in terms of what the action is that's taking place at that site.
I think we need to recognize that this government is the first government in the history of the province to address such issues as the fact that there could be well over 300 roads that are technically in trespass in the province, with previous governments never having resolved the issue of the roads going through those aboriginal lands. In B.C. we have a very dif-
[ Page 14301 ]
ferent situation than they have on the prairies. Because of our mountains and valleys, we have very little alternative in terms of where to put a road. So that's one of the reasons that we are in a much more difficult position with this in British Columbia.
The fact is, however, that the federal government has really allowed this issue, through neglect, to fester through countless federal governments without resolving the transfer of these lands which the federal government holds in trust. The federal government has never gone through the process of transferring those lands into the province so that the province would legally hold the underlying title and maintain control. We're seeking to resolve issues that have gone unresolved for a long, long time.
Where there is an action such as that, we do recognize that in some instances it is in an area where the first nation has not decided to enter the B.C. treaty process. Where there is a road that's in dispute, and where a first nation enters the B.C. Treaty Commission process.... Let's remember, again, this involves 60 percent of the aboriginal people in the province; 43 first nations have filed statements of claim. It's my understanding that it's over 60 percent of the aboriginal people in the province and the number is increasing. But there's an opportunity, through the resolution of modern treaties, to transfer paternalistic rights that come under the Indian Act into treaty rights that would be the result of a modern, negotiated settlement. And through treaties, those road disputes will be resolved. It's not going to happen overnight, but at least we've put the process in place to enable that to get resolved. The first nations want to see it resolved, too. But these are issues of trespass where it has not been resolved. The fact that these actions occur, I believe, is an affirmation of the fact that we are seeking to set up a modern treaty-making process so that we can deal with it.
D. Symons: As I read reports of some of these roadblocks, it seems that the dispute isn't over title to the road, or, as you mentioned, that it has anything to do with some dispute over trespass as far as the road goes. All too often it has something to do with another issue and the roadblock is a pawn in this dispute with the other issue. That was my concern, not the fact that the road is in dispute. I have some sympathy for them, but in many cases it seems that's not the case.
The Chair: The anxious hon. Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I'd like to comment. I agree with the hon. member. Quite often it's very complex, and the road issue is a means whereby an aboriginal community will seek to deal with another issue. For that very reason we believe we need to get these road issues resolved. So I'm not disagreeing with the hon. member there.
D. Symons: I have some concern, and that's why I raised the one. I think it was a couple of years back when Highway 97 in the Okanagan was being delayed. What's the other term used beside roadblock? Checkpoints or whatever.... It would seem to me that if any group other than an aboriginal group were to press the point they were trying to make by putting up that checkpoint, that problem would be dealt with the very day the checkpoint started. When it comes to aboriginals doing it, there is a much softer-glove approach to it, I guess, which is a....
Interjection.
D. Symons: Whoops, the anxious minister again.
Hon. J. Cashore: For the hon. member to make a comparison between aboriginal people and anybody else.... I think he needs to be a little more descriptive to make his analogy really work, otherwise we have to go back to what I just said. There are a lot of roads that go through first nations land which is held in trust by the federal government and is in dispute. I don't know how his analogy works, because I don't know of other circumstances where that is the case. It is certainly not endemic, where it could be as many as 300 or more of these so-called trespasses in the province, so I'm not sure of a comparable situation. I don't know of any other element of our society that has lands held in trust for them by the federal government which have not been transferred over to the province so that roads wouldn't be in dispute.
D. Symons: I find the minister's interruption of my talk a little interesting, because he mentioned just prior to that when agreeing with me on another issue that sometimes roads are used as ponds. Yet he keeps coming back to the fact that it's roads that are in dispute. I don't know whether Highway 97 between Penticton and Kelowna is in dispute or not -- that's the highway portion I was speaking of.
I think there's a problem here that the minister is not responding to, whether it be over logging.... I was going to say Coquihalla -- I have a momentary problem. It's the Vancouver Island area where logging was about to take place and there were disputes there....
An Hon. Member: Clayoquot Sound.
D. Symons: Clayoquot Sound. Thank you, hon. member.
People were removed from the highway there. That does not seem to work to the same extent.... I know the Duffey Lake Road was being blockaded over a dispute to do with the road itself, I believe. So that was my concern.
I can just move on to one last topic and then I will leave the minister be and let somebody else have a go. This is something I'm not at all familiar with, so I just thought a clarification is needed here. I just discovered recently that there's a Motor Fuel Tax Act that makes an exemption for fuel that's sold to native Indian people. I'm wondering how that works. If an aboriginal were to open a gas station on a reserve and purchase gas, is all that gas going to be tax-free? If I was to drive onto the reserve and fill up, would I be able to get away with it? That sort of thing was happening with cigarette sales a short while ago, when the federal government chose to reduce the sales tax. I'm just wondering if the same situation could develop in the sale of automotive fuel, because the tax on fuel is quite large. This is something I would not like to see happen.
Hon. J. Cashore: This is really a question that should go to the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, because the circum-
[ Page 14302 ]
stances the member describes are a function of the Indian Act, as I think most members are aware. It is true that status Indians who have a status card are able, using that card, to have certain tax concessions. I thank the hon. member for raising the question, because I am a member of the first provincial government in Canada to put out very publicly that we want to see eliminated, through negotiation and incrementally, the section 87 tax exemption that exists within the Indian Act. As a matter of fact, we want special tax privileges to come to an end. We don't believe there should be any tax havens, and we believe the way to achieve that is through the certainty of negotiating treaties, where aboriginal rights will be eliminated in return for achieving negotiated treaty rights.
[11:30]
The next question from hon. members that would automatically flow from that would be: "Then what would the treaty right be?" That would be subject to negotiation, but I think it's very significant that it would be based on current circumstances; it would be prospective, where the parties who are negotiating are seeking to create a relationship that is workable instead of being based on some kind of paternalistic concept that comes out of an archaic act. There's a real opportunity here. We believe it is something that can be done and that needs to be related to the increasing capacity of the first nations to achieve economic interdependence.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer, and I can say that as far as what you're saying on negotiating these special agreements away and the negotiation process, we're at one on that; I would agree with you very wholeheartedly. I would just draw to the minister's attention, though, as my last comment, that the article I was reading from is a consumer taxation branch bulletin, which says that under the Motor Fuel Tax Act, British Columbia.... It's the British Columbia fuel tax we're talking about, not the federal. The minister made a comment about federal responsibility; this is a tax particular to B.C. that I was talking about.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, but it is subject to the terms and conditions emanating out of the federal Indian Act, and that results in this situation.
A. Warnke: I want to thank hon. members for providing a variety of questions and that sort of thing. Mind you, it has distracted me, I suppose; I wanted to pursue a certain line of thought. Where I left off, the last time I was part of this debate and these discussions, they were still concerning, I suppose, some of the concepts and ideas that need clarification. I'd like to resume that part, but I want to assure the minister and the Chair that I certainly won't belabour it.
Essentially, what I want to start off with is a document called "Information About..." that was widely distributed by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. It's a series of very informative documents that were put together, which I'd like to just ask a few quick questions on in terms of clarification -- among them, of course, will be the reference to interim measures. We'll see how far we get, but I want to suggest to the hon. Chair that this probably is a subject I'll want to explore next to some extent, after seeking some clarification on a few ideas -- one, in particular. When we see the information about the important events leading to treaty negotiations in British Columbia, there are some premises that appear in the documents that I would really like to pursue.
First of all, with regard to the reference to the Royal Proclamation of 1763.... It's an important starting point, in that there certainly is an impression that this is equivalent to a Magna Carta of rights applied to aboriginal peoples throughout Canada. And yet there is an argument -- and I believe the ministry has received some legal opinions about this particular event -- that it is really not applicable to the province of British Columbia. For one thing, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 occurred at a time when it applied to British North America, which was pretty well focused in eastern Canada. Number two, British Columbia was not a colony, and certainly could not be seen as being part of British North America at that time; henceforth, the legal opinion is that the royal proclamation is inapplicable. There is also the other factor that any territories in British Columbia that were explored or whatever were usually on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Co.
Just to elaborate, I noticed also in the information about the important events leading to treaty negotiations in British Columbia that there are some references to the Douglas treaties which need some clarification. Otherwise, a premise might be established here -- which the public reads -- that is a bit misleading. I do not see that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is attempting to mislead; nonetheless, what is written could give a misleading impression as to why we need some of these negotiations.
One in particular was the assertion that Douglas himself negotiated the Douglas treaties on behalf of the colony of Vancouver Island. For the record, the first 11 of the so-called Douglas treaties were negotiated not as the Governor of the colony of Vancouver Island but as the chief factor of the Hudson's Bay Co., which is something quite different.
When we go back in the history of our province, I believe the first Governor was Richard Blanshard. That's a name we all know as we travel from the ferry to this capital. In fact, Douglas did not have instructions from the Crown to make treaties; rather, he had instructions from the Hudson's Bay Co., as he was an employee of that company. When Douglas became Governor, he did negotiate the treaty that we see in Nanaimo and two treaties that we see in Fort Rupert.
There's another point. Much has been made of the misnomer Governor Trutch. For the record, Trutch was never Governor; he was British Columbia's first Lieutenant-Governor when British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871. The infamous memorandum that Trutch has been accused of circulating denying the existence of aboriginal title actually was written in 1870. By the way, I'm sure that the minister and his advisers know full well as I'm saying this that there are two different interpretations that could be put on the record responding to these that could be considered pro- or anti-aboriginal. Henceforth, that's not the point of these remarks. The point of the remarks is to assert that there is some clarification, and perhaps there's some misleading information here that could project quite a different interpretation as to why we need treaty negotiations.
I also have to urge very strongly that.... British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871. I did go back through the history books, and I did not see anyone representing British Columbia as being part of the original British North America
[ Page 14303 ]
negotiations. Therefore British Columbia did enter union in quite different terms than the original four provinces making up Canada -- and Prince Edward Island later on. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland were part of the original negotiations, even if they had not entered union; in the case of Newfoundland, it did not enter union until 1949.
The Terms of Union that were spelled out when British Columbia became part of Canada were that Canada was responsible for "Indians and lands reserved for Indians." The province in turn assumed obligation for providing enough lands for reserves. Indeed, some of the comments that the minister made to my colleague the member for Richmond Centre along this line are, I think, kind of interesting, because lands.... "Part of the problem," said the minister, "is that the lands are held in trust and not passed over to the provinces." As a matter of fact, one could argue that the province has passed over appropriate lands to the federal Crown as part of the Terms of Union. In fact, I believe that in 1924 or thereabouts, a declaration was actually made that the Terms of Union, as they apply to aboriginal affairs on behalf of the province of British Columbia, had actually been met.
So I would suggest to the minister that there is some information that is being distributed by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs that perhaps needs some updating, clarification or just some correcting. I'm wondering now: are the mistakes I pointed out the result of certain kinds of premises by the minister, or simply mistakes in presentation? If it's the latter, has the minister taken any action to correct these mistakes?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member, who's a history scholar, for his statements in the House this morning. I think they're very appropriate. With regard to the answer to his question, we are in the process of revising, and there are some errors in fact. With regard to the very key question he's asking -- are there any underlying assumptions based on these statements? -- the answer is very clearly and definitely no. The royal proclamation, for instance, is an historical document in Canada. It doesn't really apply to British Columbia, but it did at the time that Douglas was doing his treaty-making, and therefore it does have historical importance to British Columbia.
The points that were made by the hon. member and Mr. Plant, a lawyer, who wrote an article about two weeks ago pointing out that Douglas, prior to becoming Governor, was actually a Hudson's Bay factor and -- working under the direction of the British Crown -- did some treaty-making at that time.... But those are errors in fact that.... We've pulled the document and are revising it.
I also appreciate the hon. member pointing out that the document doesn't include B.C. entering Confederation in 1871; therefore there are points like this that we are going to get into an updated document. But there's nothing in that document that needs to be changed that in any way forms any of the underlying understandings of this government with regard to its policy.
A. Warnke: Also to follow up on some of the information that's disseminated by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, what is a bit unclear on some of the underlying principles in the land claims settlement issue.... Perhaps we should try to facilitate the time, because certainly the minister and myself and everybody else don't want to spend the rest of the spring and summer debating aboriginal issues. Therefore I'll put it in this kind of context -- that when I talk about land claims principles, I'll give an example, and perhaps the minister could comment on it.
[11:45]
First of all, we put forward principles where the ownership of all land is vested in the Crown. We had some discussion last week about aboriginal self-government and how the Canadian constitution, as it reads -- especially emphasizing sections 91 and 92 -- still applies, and about how there should be no attempt to establish a third order or anything like that. Along that line, one basic principle is that the ownership of all land is vested in the Crown. There is an impression.... I know one distinguished constitutional expert in this province somehow believes there is some suggestion, the way aboriginal land claims settlements are being reached, that Crown ownership is somewhat contestable. So perhaps we need some clarification as to that principle.
A second principle is that aboriginal rights do not equal aboriginal title. When we address aboriginal rights, we address aboriginal rights as determined by the courts, not by some sort of notions or ideas. As much as I like philosophy and theory, we do not express aboriginal rights in terms of philosophy or theoretical notions; we address aboriginal rights in the context of the courts, and aboriginal rights do not equal or mean aboriginal title. That's an example of a second kind of principle.
I see we're getting a little short of time. I'll just stick to those two as examples. I'm wondering, in disseminating where the British Columbia position is coming from, as expressed through some of the documents released by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, whether the principles of negotiations might be laid out more clearly by the ministry.
Hon. J. Cashore: We will send the member a copy of our negotiating principles. It's laid out very clearly and it's not ambiguous; they are very clear statements. I have read them into the record during this debate, but we will send him a copy.
With regard to Crown title, the province has searched the first nations ownership of land, and as a result of treaties, it will be underlaid by Crown title. I have stated this in the House previously. The existence of aboriginal rights does not call into question Crown title. However, it does mean that the province must negotiate to reconcile and recognize the exercise of aboriginal rights in B.C. So in answer to his second question, aboriginal rights are not the same as title. But the fact is that coming out of the court case, we are advised to negotiate modern treaties which define these rights that the courts have pointed out are unextinguished. He is quite right that they are not fee simple ownership rights, but they are unextinguished rights and they need definition, and that's one of the major roles of the negotiations.
With that, hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[ Page 14304 ]
Committee A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. Cashore moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 10:22 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SENIORS
On vote 42: minister's office, $461,000.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I am very pleased to rise today and present the Ministry of Health budget estimates for the 1995-96 fiscal year.
This has, I think, been a year of good progress for the ministry. The hard work of the last three and a half years is beginning to show the tangible and positive results that we anticipated as we introduced our response to the results of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and launched the New Directions initiative. It is also a year in which we must look forward and do what is necessary to protect our universal medicare system from the threats that it now faces. I think all member would agree that there is much that is worth protecting.
Our government has already accomplished a great deal towards that goal. Perhaps most importantly, through a time of tight government finances -- and we are not alone as a province in facing tight finances -- we have maintained funding for our universal public health system as a priority of this government. Overall, the budget that we are debating here today allocates nearly $1.3 billion in new health funding, in addition to the budget figures that were in place when this government came to office.
If you look across the country, you can see how well we have done in comparison with other jurisdictions. I guess the most obvious contrast is the one directly across the mountains from us in Alberta. Their residents are looking at a 7.2 percent cut to health funding this year, which is part of an overall reduction of 17 percent over three years. On top of that, Alberta health care premiums are going to be increased by some 7 percent on July 1. Albertans are going to be paying more and receiving less when it comes to health services. Other provinces, while their cuts have not been as drastic as Alberta's, simply can't compare with our province's strong and consistent record on funding health services.
I must say that not only has that commitment remained high but we have also looked clearly to fill gaps in health services where they've appeared. One very large example of this is the more than $90 million that's been provided for new initiatives and new facilities to reduce waiting lists over the last three years, including the announcement that Premier Harcourt and I made in March of this year for the funding of $18.5 million in new funding for wait-list strategy and reduction of wait times for British Columbians seeking elective surgery. Clearly that money, and the wait-list strategy in general, will benefit the thousands of British Columbians who will receive magnetic resonance imaging, cancer treatment, joint-replacement surgery or heart surgery. I think everyone in the system deserves credit for the success in working through the tight times to sustain the system and deal with this sort of initiative. So we have some successes that I think should give us cause for optimism for the future.
Our support has also been in the form of more than operating funds. We have provided new facilities to better meet the needs of British Columbians, especially those who live in under-serviced areas of the province. An excellent example of this was just last Friday when I and MLAs from the area officially opened the new $26 million Fraser Valley Cancer Centre -- a centre that will improve cancer treatment for all British Columbians and will allow people in Surrey, Delta and the Fraser Valley access to cancer treatment services closer to their homes. When fully operational and installed, that centre will provide treatment for some 2,500 patients per year and will be part of our major expansion of cancer treatment services in the province. It's part of that overall $70 million commitment over three years to increase cancer services through building of the Surrey clinic, the new clinic in Kelowna, the expansion of the clinic here in Victoria and some money to make sure that the equipment at the Vancouver clinic remains state of the art.
That's one example of how we are making investments in capital at a time when some are saying that incurring debt for capital facilities is wrong. We say, and this budget says, that spending capital on needed health facilities is right and necessary, whether it's cancer treatment for all British Columbians, whether it's a health centre for Kitimat or whether it's an expansion of the Richmond General Hospital. In those areas, I would say that the expenditure of capital dollars to preserve health facilities is necessary and appropriate.
Another area of considerable progress in the last two years has been the move of health service delivery and health service decision-making to our province's regions and communities. All 20 of the province's new regional health boards have now been designated and are in place. Most of the community health councils have now been established, not on a pilot project basis but on a basis that says this is an important initiative for every community and region in British Columbia. It's not enough to empower one community and one region. We need to do it for all. In the near future, or by the end of the summer, health funds will be flowing through those regional boards. Then the consolidation of local service delivery will begin to become reality.
I think all members of the Legislature are aware that this has been a long process -- and, at times, difficult. We chose deliberately to have a community-based development of regionalization and community health councils in this province rather than a top-down imposition of regional structures. I think the efforts of thousands of British Columbians are starting to pay off, and the result will be a responsive, accessible and more efficient system.
[ Page 14305 ]
I think one place we can look for a symbol of how the new health decision-making will occur is the success of projects that have been supported by the Closer to Home fund. We established that fund last year, and I'm happy to report that it's back in the new fiscal year. The projects that are supported by the fund are investments in improved and cost-effective community-based health alternatives. Over 320 projects have now been improved and funded in communities and regions across the province.
[10:30]
I want to highlight three specific examples that indicate the range of services that have been funded through this initiative -- one from my part of the world down in 100 Mile House. Some of their analysis suggested that they had a problem with hospitalization and use of in-patient days due to nutritional disorders -- something like 1,600 in-patient days a year. The hospital admissions and resulting costs were mostly preventable. Through the Closer to Home fund, we are now supporting a community-based nutrition service in 100 Mile House aimed at improving dietary counselling and support for local residents, particularly those who may have a chronic condition: diabetes, heart disease or an eating disorder. The bottom line, I think, will be better health for people in the region and reduced hospital costs.
Another example is Powell River. There, the decision was to use Closer to Home funds to support a project that allowed low-risk mothers and their newborn children to leave the hospital soon after birth and return home. It has provided support for mothers and their children. Again, it is bridging the gap between hospital services and community-based care, to the benefit of local residents and at considerable savings.
Finally, an example from the southern interior. In Kamloops it used to be true that people who needed IV therapy had no choice but to stay in hospital. Home IV was available in other parts of the province, but not in Kamloops. Thanks to the decision of the local community and the Closer to Home fund, there is now an alternative. Home IV therapy is available and will free up hospital beds for those who really need them. It will allow that therapy to take place in people's homes.
Those are three very diverse projects, but they share one thing: they were created by local communities. These were decisions made by steering committees struck by regional health boards or community health councils. Local citizens set the priorities, and local service deliverers, hospitals and community-based services presented a design for programs. That is the sort of initiative I think we can look forward to more and more in the future. As councils and boards are empowered to deliver services, they will be making our universal public health system more accessible to British Columbians.
Those accomplishments are, and will be, making a real difference to people in the province. The budget that is before us maintains that commitment. The budget calls for an overall increase in health expenditures of about 4 percent, or about $250 million. Given the fiscal environment we live in, this is pretty good news. Times are tough. Public expenditures are under scrutiny, but our health system continues to fare better than any other in Canada. As I think I said in talking about a meeting with other provincial ministers of health, at times this province is the envy of others when we compare the budgets and health expenditures that our Legislature has allocated.
Within that overall 4 percent lift, the mental health and continuing care areas of community-based services will receive increases of 4.5 percent and 8 percent respectively. Over the last three years, this adds to the increased funding for community-based services; I think the running total now stands at well over $350 million.
The hospital sector receives a 3 percent increase. Pharmacare -- a very important program -- receives a 6.8 percent increase. We will be investing $245 million in capital projects during 1995-96. We think these are necessary investments, they are affordable to the people of British Columbia and they will be financed over time.
As a result of the regionalization process that I've already talked about, the size of the Ministry of Health staff is going to be substantially decreased this year. About 1,400 government employees who directly provide health services will leave the ministry and become employees of regional health boards. This is the start of a movement; over the next three years some 3,200 staff are expected to leave the ministry. This has been accomplished in the spirit of cooperation with the employees and with the unions that represent them, and within the goals and objectives of the labour commissioner who has been appointed under Bill 48.
The budget we have before us continues to move the services and decision-making closer to home; it builds on the good work. Our health system still has, I submit, a way to go before we have a sustainable structure for the long haul, but we continue to make good progress.
One reason why progress is being made is the effort that we've put into finding ways to spend tax dollars smarter, to reduce that waste and inefficiency that I think both the royal commission and all of us have seen in some aspects of health spending. I want to talk about several of them. First, we've debated regionalization before, both in the House and in other venues. I submit, again, that replacing that complex array of some 700 service-providing agencies with about 100 community health councils and regional health boards will reduce duplication, will reduce overlap and will produce new efficiencies. As health plans and administrative structures come in from regions around the province, I am more and more convinced that the savings will accrue to us.
Second, the PharmaNet computer network, which is now being pilot-tested, will reduce the administrative costs for that program and will also provide improved services at the front end for British Columbians who are having their prescriptions filled. More importantly, it will provide protection from potentially dangerous drug reactions and interactions.
Third, the development of a new form of photo identification to replace the CareCard will reduce the possibility and risk of fraudulent use of the health system. It will effectively replace a variety of ID cards across government. This is an initiative that has been jointly undertaken by my ministry and the Ministry of Social Services. Some of the actual on-the-ground support is going to be provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. At the end of the day we will have, I believe, a more effective identification system and reduced misuse of the system.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the ongoing work, day after day, by administrators and hospitals and other facilities across the province to find efficiencies, to plan better and to spend smarter. Dozens of hospitals have made excellent
[ Page 14306 ]
progress. There's clearly more to be made. Finally, I want to mention our ongoing cooperation with physicians in the province. Last week the ministry, the BCMA and the Medical Services Commission jointly announced the public education program designed to encourage the responsible use of medical services by all British Columbians. The goal of that initiative was quantified. We said: "We think we can reduce projected medical service costs by up to $60 million, if we get it right. If we build on some less-than-effective programs in other provinces, tailor it right and involve physicians in working with their patients, we can ask every British Columbian to work together to use our health system appropriately." So the Taking Care of Health Care initiative is part of that broader scope. It's part of utilization management designed to sustain and improve the health system for the long haul. So there's a lot of progress both in making sure that the services are there and that we get effectiveness and efficiency in their delivery.
But the system we have faces two major threats, which have grown more serious over the past year. The first is the action of the federal government which has put the system at risk through its cuts to health funding for the provinces. The federal Minister of Health and the Prime Minister have plenty of good words to say about health but very little positive action to back them up. I don't fault the Chretien government for addressing their deficit. They clearly needed to, and we have addressed it in this province. But I think it's quite wrong for them to ignore the long-term impact of their cuts and support for health care. They are real cuts; they are not hypothetical. By the time the 1997-98 budget is presented and debated in this Legislature, federal support for health care in British Columbia will drop by at least $340 million. That is a huge problem, as we will see as we get into debate on programs.
Clearly the federal government had other options. Our government presented them with other options: ways to reduce waste and duplication, and wasteful subsidies to business and to the regions. Instead, the federal government has shifted the problem to the provinces. They contradict their own rhetoric about health care daily. Really, I think they have walked away from funding medicare in a way that most Canadians are unaware of but should be very concerned about.
Even more damaging, I submit, are the suggestions by the Prime Minister and some other federal spokespeople that medicare should get back to the basics: cover catastrophic illness, and not pay for dental care or eyeglasses or ambulance trips. Well, hon. Chair, as anybody who understands our medicare system knows, it doesn't pay for those things right now. They are provided under other programs, largely provincial programs. It's the federal government's own Canada Health Act -- the one they say they are protecting -- that says clearly that Canadians expect more than treatment of catastrophic illness and injury.
I also wonder whether the Prime Minister has really talked to his national health forum when he says that treating catastrophic illness and injury is the priority and goal of medicare. If so, he must be the only person left in Canada who says you simply stand back and treat illness and injury. The whole direction of health planning and initiatives in this province and across the country has been away from focusing on catastrophes and towards early detection and prevention.
I met early this morning with a new cross-ministry committee to look at injury prevention in a way that says it's not just a Ministry of Health issue, or Ministry of Attorney General issue, or Ministry of Education issue, or an ICBC issue; or a non-profit organization issue, it involves a whole lot of players. We need to look at injury prevention so that we're dealing with people before they become injured, rather than constantly trying to figure out how to get enough trauma wards to take care of them after they're injured.
My analysis -- and I've said this before -- is that the federal government has simply missed the point. We don't need to abandon the health system. We need to make it work better, and that's a view shared by my colleagues across the country. We met for two days in April in Vancouver and the consensus of all provincial Health ministers was to redefine our relationship with Ottawa. The future of health care in Canada is at risk. It's the withdrawal of federal funding support that has left the door open for those who would advocate for a multi-payer, two-tier system to walk through.
[10:45]
That's the second threat: the threat of two-tier health. It is a threat to the survival of medicare, to the principle of equal access that British Columbians and Canadians value so highly. I guess at the most basic level, to say that we need to go to a two-tier system is to say that the universal public system simply can't meet the needs of British Columbians. I categorically disagree with this. It's a copout. It shows an unwillingness to face the task of making the system work better; we can make it work better. That isn't just my opinion. I think it's the opinion of every unbiased review of the system over the years. The reviews conclude the same thing, that it can be made to work better and it can be made sustainable. As a country, we spend more than enough dollars on health. Our challenge, as those responsible for the system, is to spend wisely and well.
Under a two-tier system, I think the optimistic promises I spoke of earlier would be tomorrow's bad news. Some who support two-tier health say we can use it to reduce waiting lists. In reality, the loss of physicians and resources to that new second tier would actually create longer waiting lists. They say two-tier health would reduce pressure on the system, but in reality two-tier health leaves the public system saddled with the most expensive and complex procedures. They say it could attract more specialists to the province or the country. In reality, any new specialists that come would be coming to work in the user-pay system, not in the public system. Only those able and willing to pay would benefit.
What we need to do as legislators, who are charged with looking not just at the impact of initiatives on today's health services but down the road at what will happen five or ten or 15 years, is to recognize that two-tier health means, inevitably, a rich system and a poor system. That's what it means everywhere in the world where two-tier health is permitted, and that's clearly what it would mean here.
If we choose to take a hard look at what's happened elsewhere, it is clear. In Australia, public hospitals have found themselves overburdened with patients who can't afford to use the second tier. Most private hospitals have struggled with occupancy rates of around 50 percent. Last year, a study was done on delays in elective surgery in the public system. It found that one of the principle causes was a reluctance of surgeons to work in public hospitals because of their desire to encourage use of the private system.
In New Zealand, the move to two-tier health has also caused major problems. Last year it was reported that instead
[ Page 14307 ]
of correcting the problems of the New Zealand health system, the second tier has worsened them. The system is more fragmented, less equitable. The solutions that have been tried in what used to be a universal public system, including leasing wards to the private sector, taking fee-paying patients and cutting services, have simply not delivered on the promise of a more efficient system.
In Britain, the two-tier stories are too numerous to mention. A recent television documentary in England reported a large number of cases where patients in the public system had been waiting up to a year to be seen by a specialist and were offered immediate treatment if they were able and prepared to pay for it. It was a rather damning indictment of some British doctors, who appeared to be allowing greed to distort health care.
I think the evidence is obvious. I haven't even mentioned examples from our neighbours to the south. A two-tier medical system simply has nothing to do with quality care for most of us; it has to do with profits for a few. If you're an average British Columbian, two-tier medicine is clearly bad for your health.
I'm not, and this government is not, willing to sacrifice our health system for what I call a dangerous quick fix. We are willing to face the challenges and do the hard work that's needed to make our universal public health system sustainable for the long haul. I think we share the vision of a single, universal and public health system with a great majority of British Columbians -- a system that is adequately funded, focused on getting the greatest possible health benefit for every dollar we spend; a system that is increasingly sensitive to the needs and priorities of health consumers in communities and regions around the province; a system that's committed to spending dollars and providing services as close to home as possible; a system that recognizes the vital role of health promotion and the prevention of illness and injury; and a system that is sustainable for the long haul, is flexible but recognizes the need to change with the times. That's the vision. It means no user charges and no patient fees for necessary services. It means no second tier. It means backing up our words on health care with action.
The budget that we're debating here commits to positive action. It provides adequate funding to maintain the system. It provides for transfers of health service delivery to British Columbia's regions and communities. It clearly devotes resources to areas like prevention and community-based services that offer the greatest health benefit to British Columbians. It's a budget that positions us well to defend medicare and fight the proponents of two-tier health. It's good for our health system; it's good for British Columbians. I'm pleased to present it to this committee, and I look forward to discussing it in detail and responding to questions.
L. Reid: I have an incredible desire to see this as a meaningful debate and, as such, I wrote to the minister on March 22:
"Dear Mr. Minister:
"In preparation for the upcoming estimates debate for the Ministry of Health, I am requesting a program-by-program breakdown of the funding allocations for the 1995-96 fiscal year. To facilitate estimates discussion, I would appreciate receiving a detailed program breakdown well in advance of the commencement of debate. In addition, I would appreciate receiving a monthly update outlining wait-lists for surgery, MRI, cardiac, dialysis and cancer therapies. I understand that this should not be problematic in that you have stated that the Ministry of Health closely monitors wait-lists in British Columbia."
I thanked you in advance for your attention to this request; that letter was dated March 22, 1995.
On April 5 you wrote back:
"Thank you for your letter of March 22 in which you requested information to prepare for the upcoming estimates debate for the Ministry of Health. I have asked ministry staff to assemble this information and to forward the material to you. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my assistant.
"Yours sincerely,
"The Minister of Health"
Now it strikes me as bizarre that this minister could come in here this morning and anticipate having some kind of meaningful debate when what was promised was not delivered. That level of organization -- or disorganization -- either indicates a complete lack of regard for the process, no commitment to the exercise or indeed a wish to put the ministry staff through a bizarre exercise. I ask the minister to comment.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the member opposite has received a lot of information from the ministry over the years. I acknowledge that we have not have responded to some requests as promptly as we might. I hope some of that information...
L Reid: You haven't responded at all.
Hon. P. Ramsey: ...will be provided in the near future. Clearly, this member has been a Health critic for the opposition in this Legislature for close to three and a half years. I think she knows the issues around budget as well as I do. Without the benefit of asking the ministry to analyze every facet, I would assume that she and her research staff are capable of engaging, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, in a reasoned debate about what level of funding for medical services should be provided and about how her party intends to approach some of the challenges we are facing -- whether they focus on prevention and health promotion, on regionalization or on the threats we see to our universal health system by the actions of the federal government and by the proponents of two-tier medicare.
L. Reid: I would simply ask the minister to consider how many other letters he signs off that are absolutely meaningless.
I will lead into a debate this morning on mental health services and perhaps conclude before the noonhour on an extensive debate on cancer services in the province of British Columbia. I am going to quote from a letter dated March 29, 1995, regarding the discussion and the organization around Riverview Hospital lands. It is written by the corporation of the city of North Vancouver. The city council, at its regular meeting of Monday, March 27, 1995, endorsed the following resolution:
"Pursuant to the report of the social planner, dated March 21, 1995, entitled 'Riverview Hospital Lands,' that the hon. the Premier, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Richmond East and the Leader of the Third Party" -- the member for Peace River South -- "and Dennis Truss, president and chief executive officer of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, be advised that the city of North Vancouver strongly supports: (1) the inclusion of adequate numbers and types of
[ Page 14308 ]
mental health facilities and services to serve the needs of Vancouver region residents as the primary consideration in the redevelopment of the Riverview lands; and (2) an open public process to define the redevelopment plans of the Riverview lands to ensure that other aspects -- environmental, horticultural and historical -- of this regional resource are fully considered, [and] that the Ministry of Health and the B.C. Schizophrenia Society be so informed."
Their questions come in sync with a number of other city councils around the province and all refer to the deinstitutionalization of Riverview Hospital. I will also take some excerpts from the minutes of the Vancouver City Council meeting of April 11, 1995:
"Before council was an administrative report dated January 27, 1995, in which the medical health officer, in consultation with the director of social planning and the chief constable, commented on a written presentation dated December 13, 1994, on community mental health services and planning for Riverview Hospital. The information package was prepared by Ms. Dianne Macfarlane, chief executive officer of Riverview Hospital; the B.C. Mental Health Society; Mr. John Russell, executive director, Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society; and Ms. Kay Vinall, president, Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society."
They make a number of recommendations:
"In an administrative report, staff suggest that for the current Riverview Hospital downsizing plan to work, the province must: begin a provincewide initiative on housing, which will provide a wide range of housing and support options over the next decade; provide a comprehensive service for seniors with serious psychiatric problems; assess the adequacy of all hospital-based psychiatric service throughout British Columbia; do a comprehensive review of community mental health services throughout the province."
They continue to make a number of points, but I would ask the minister to please give some guidance in terms of the status of the land use plan for the Riverview lands. What exceptions or directions are new in terms of our debate of last year?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't think anybody who has looked at the Riverview situation, who has been involved with mental health issues or who is an advocate for those suffering from a severe mental illness has ever questioned the direction that was set in the late eighties: that the institutionalization of really very large numbers -- 3,000 to 4,000 folks at one site in the province -- was appropriate. Neither, I think, has anybody every seriously questioned the need that we do have for secure institutions for those suffering from a chronic or severe mental illness. I've heard those in the mental health community refer to it as the need for sanctuary.
The development of Riverview Hospital and lands is ongoing. Recently my parliamentary secretary, the member for Comox Valley, and myself announced a number of further actions on Riverview redevelopment. They included some siting for 50 tertiary beds in the northern part of the province, siting for facilities on Vancouver Island and siting for beds in the lower mainland. A redevelopment of a 300, perhaps 320, bed facility in the lower mainland is clearly necessary. The site for Vancouver Island places 45 of them at Nanaimo and 50 in Victoria at two or three different sites; the site in the north places 33 in Prince George, four in Dawson Creek and seven over in Terrace. Clearly, in all three areas outside the lower mainland, the planning groups for those areas have said that there's a need for specialized tertiary beds in the lower mainland to take care of patients from those regions.
[11:00]
That work has been done. Planning groups have addressed the need to take tertiary services closer to home around the province. Siting for beds has now been, in most cases, determined. The next bit of work is to do the functional analysis of what supports are actually needed. It's no good having beds for tertiary patients in Nanaimo if the requisite professional services of psychiatrists and others are not also available.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
That is the work that is being done as far as the Riverview replacement project is concerned. It is clearly something that will be long term. The B.C. Building Corporation will begin an extensive consultation on use of the Riverview site itself and hear the views of community groups, mental health advocates and many, many others as we move forward with redevelopment of that specific site. As far as the Riverview redevelopment, I'll stop there. I imagine the member opposite has other questions on mental health.
L. Reid: Still citing the Vancouver City Council meeting of April 11, 1995, at the council's invitation, Mr. John Russell and Ms. Dianne Macfarlane attended the meeting and made a presentation on the deinstitutionalization of Riverview Hospital. Mr. John Russell, executive director of Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to brief council on the work that's been done on planning for Riverview Hospital and update council on some of the developments with respect to mental health services in the community.
Mr. Russell advised that the downsizing of Riverview Hospital has changed significantly in the last three years, from a time when the hospital got smaller, with fewer beds and no closely coordinated development of services in the community. During that period, there were times when community services were developed, but the two were not coordinated.
My comment to the minister -- and I trust that many, many MLAs around this province have similar concerns brought forward to them by family members of individuals who are currently in Riverview or are part of the downsizing process -- is that there doesn't appear to be sufficient support in the community. As we speak, a number of these individuals are often found returning, under their own recognizance, to the Riverview properties where they live. I can cite a number of cases -- and I intend to later this morning -- of individuals who have departed, without the knowledge of their care providers, in excess of three or four or five times and returned to the Riverview properties. I would ask the minister to please comment in terms of how one might best respond to these family members who do not see any coordination in the current process.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I think we ought to acknowledge several things when we talk about deinstitutionalization. When the plan for Riverview was proposed a number of years ago, some very specific targets were set for building residential beds in the community, for providing mental health workers and services in the community, for providing psychiatric sessions and for doing a number of other things that the member suggests are simply "absent." The member needs to know that in every case, as we talk today, the numbers proposed in that plan have far, far been exceeded.
[ Page 14309 ]
They proposed the development of some 500 residential beds around the province, for instance. That was for the entire province. We have now developed over 1,100, and more are going to be developed this year. I recognize the concern of Vancouver City Council and others that we have adequate beds, but to place this burden of making sure we have adequate residence for some of the most vulnerable members of our society solely at the door of Riverview redevelopment ignores the profound issues of homelessness in our society.
I know that the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services is working very hard to provide an adequate number of new subsidized beds as well as beds for special cases. I have to tell you that the total federal withdrawal from that initiative has not helped a great deal. We will be continuing to develop residential community beds, including redevelopment of the Portland Hotel, to make sure we are doing what we need where we can to provide housing.
Second, let me address the comment about coordination. Mr. Russell spoke eloquently of the need for coordination, and he should, because his organization is one of those charged with providing that sort of coordination between institutionalized care at Riverview and community-based care in the greater Vancouver region. Mr. Russell and his society have done well. We provided them with a more than 50 percent increase in their budget over the last three budget cycles, because we want them to do well.
As the member opposite knows, though, the other thing I would say is that there will always be an occasional person who falls through the cracks in this system. That is inevitable, but if we take those specific instances and generalize from them, we are doing a great disservice to the work of John Russell, the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society and those who have been working on Riverview redevelopment at that institution and at the ministry and community levels. They work daily to make sure that as few people as possible fall through those cracks, and that the cracks are as small as possible.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, mental health funding will increase again this year. The focus will again be on coordinated development of community-based options, and providers such as Mr. Russell and the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society will again be intimately involved in making those services a reality on the ground.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments in terms of the ministry being prepared to work with mental health professionals around this province. What I'm really looking for is some recognition that there will be individuals in this province who require a protected setting over time, and that some recognition to individuals who currently reside at Riverview Hospital -- and some who have resided there in excess of 50 years -- needs to be taken into consideration.
In terms of plans for the existing residents of Riverview, these families have come to me, as I know they have come to many MLAs in this province, wondering why the necessity exists of moving individuals who have resided there in excess of 50 years. They wonder why it's considered prudent to move those individuals. We're talking about individuals who are in their late sixties and seventies, and that is a concern of many family members in this province. I'm wondering if any consideration is being given to the fact that a number of those individuals have resided there in excess of 50 years. Will they be allowed to remain on the Riverview property, rather than continuing to fragment that service for them all around the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that there are some individuals who have such long-term residence that we need to be very, very cautious in seeing what is closer to home for them. If the member has specific examples of specific individuals, I would invite her -- as I think she has done in several cases -- to share them with the ministry staff, in order to make sure their particular needs are respected.
I must tell the member, though, that one of the things that many of those of us who live outside the lower mainland welcomed about the whole Riverview redevelopment initiative was the chance to preserve some community and family ties for people who, in the past, were lost -- in some cases to their families and to their communities. For a generation, the pattern for somebody in Prince George with a severe mental illness has been admission to Riverview. If he or she was then discharged, regrettably the pattern too often was a flow into downtown Vancouver -- eastside Vancouver -- where there were no community or family supports. This was not their community; they had no family. All those ties that could serve as a support for somebody with a chronic or severe illness simply were not available.
I recognize the concern of somebody who has lived for a long period in Riverview. I think the member also recognizes that what we have done by having one facility serve the entire province is break ties and supports and provide a lower level of care than a redevelopment will provide to the many, many British Columbians who have had, in the past, only one locus of service in the province -- Riverview.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's remarks. I also appreciate the reference to closer to home, because the individuals I speak of -- and I am happy to share their files and their need for a long-term plan and a short-term plan from this ministry -- reside in the lower mainland. They reside at Riverview; their families reside in the lower mainland. There is some desire on their part not to disrupt the home they have known in excess of 50 years.
I appreciate the minister's comments about those who may reside outside the lower mainland, but my specific question is this: will there be a plan in recognition of those individuals who have resided at Riverview in excess of 50 years and whose families currently reside in the lower mainland? Will some consideration be given to not disrupting their lifestyles?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I would ask the member, if she has a specific person in mind, that she share this with staff. It's inappropriate for us to discuss detailed medical histories of individuals in this venue.
One of the things I think we have done a better job on, in the last couple of years at least, has been doing that planning so that discharge from Riverview has not been the casting-away it has been, regrettably, in some other jurisdictions.
What we're going to continue is what we've done in the past. Last year we spent about $5 million to build 50 specialized, community-based residential spaces, which was
[ Page 14310 ]
directly parallel to a 50-bed reduction at Riverview. We also allocated some $300,000 in capital funding for Hydrecs house, a ninety-bed apartment building for persons with mental illness, which the member may have visited.
We are saying very clearly: let's look at a variety of residential or community settings that may provide -- and I think in many cases do provide -- the security and the sense of support that somebody with a chronic or severe mental illness requires, without the necessity for long-term, large-scale institutionalization. As I've said before, clearly the need for a sanctuary remains, and I don't think anybody in the mental health field would say otherwise. What we need to do is make sure that we are providing the right level of support as close to people's families and communities as possible, whether it is the lower mainland, the southern interior or Vancouver Island.
L. Reid: Perhaps the minister would be so kind as to comment on the government's plan for the Woodlands site. The question specifically is: will there be housing on that site? Will it look like a community? Will it look like village housing? Will any of those considerations be given to these residents?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Wrong ministry.
L. Reid: Well, I think you have some tremendous responsibility for this, because people are seeing this as part of the Riverview downsizing plan and wondering what other options may be available to them. Again, the question remains about the individuals who've called this home for longer than you and I have been alive. So I think that has to be part of this discussion today, and I believe you can probably comment on whether or not the individuals who are currently in mental health facilities in this province or reside on the Woodlands property at the Riverview institution.... Will there continue to be housing attached to that site?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, the Woodlands facility, as the member opposite knows, is the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Services. I recognize that sometimes the Woodlands site is used as a description of everything on that location in Coquitlam.
[11:15]
Let me speak specifically to the Riverview site and the redevelopment of that facility. What my parliamentary secretary, the member from Comox, announced during Mental Health Week was that plans for a 300-to-320-bed -- depending on population growth and projections -- facility would indeed be planned for that site. The planning will also consider whether there should be other housing, supported residential housing, for those with mental illnesses on that site. BCBC will be charged with doing the community consultation there, as it has done with other sites such as Colony Farm and others.
I think that has been a venue that has allowed those concerned about development in the community, those concerned about mental health services and those concerned about other issues -- be it park or trees or a variety of issues around Riverview -- to make sure that they are recognized in a plan for that site.
L. Reid: On the William Rudd House -- I believe it is the home for cystic fibrosis patients -- did the funding for that come from the Ministry of Health?
Interjection.
L. Reid: On the Woodlands property in the Riverview plan.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Not for the last time in these estimates, there is a detail there that I will have to get back to the member on.
L. Reid: I appreciate that, and I certainly welcome receipt of the information at any time.
In terms of Queens Park Hospital, if I indeed can offer these to the record as well for a future answer, I understand it is currently being funded by, or under the auspices of, the Pacific Health Care Society. They have leased 7.7 acres from B.C. Buildings Corporation as part of the Woodlands land redevelopment plan. My question, if indeed the minister at a future point can respond, is: how did that proposal work?
There are other groups that are looking to involve themselves and provide health facilities on those lands. If I were directed as to who would be the best person to speak to within the ministry, I could simply direct them to that source of information. In the minds of a number of British Columbians, the land development plan seems to be a very disjointed process. If the minister could respond, even in terms of a time line.... If someone were to submit a proposal to be part of this BCBC exercise, either under the William Rudd House or the Queens Park Hospital redevelopment, what would the time line be?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I and others will be meeting with the Minister of Employment and Investment and BCBC in the very near future. In a week or two I expect to firm up a time line and a plan for doing the consultation on Riverview lands. I will be sending the same message to many of the same groups. The member opposite might wish to say that they can anticipate that the public process will commence some time this summer.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments in that the process is going to commence, perhaps some time this summer. If the minster could kindly comment on a time line -- when do you expect it to conclude? Are we talking six months, 12 months, 20 months or 30 months? Can you give them some sense of when they might expect answers to these inquiries?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Initially, we had hoped to get that consultation underway back in March and completed by the end of calendar 1995. The time lines have slipped a little bit, but I still think it should be a fairly tight process. I think most of the groups that have been involved and concerned about health service delivery and other aspects of Riverview lands have their positions well established. They're ready to go and chomping at the bit to have their say. So I think we could look at winding up that process early in 1996. I would suggest the first quarter of 1996.
L. Reid: I appreciate that the member for New Westminster is with us. Back on June 26, 1991, this member commented in Hansard on a supported-village concept on the grounds of Woodlands -- what we're calling the Riverview site. I'm wondering if that proposal -- and I understand it was a
[ Page 14311 ]
proposal at that time, shortly after this government took office -- did make its way through the process and if it is under discussion within the ministry today.
A. Hagen: I'm pleased to enter into this discussion. As is often the case when we're dealing with issues, we're dealing with multiministry issues. The member is, in fact, talking about lands that are in trust with BCBC, which is not this ministry, and is talking about services that are provided by the Ministry of Social Services for mentally challenged people and services that are provided for people with mental illness under the Ministry of Health. When we look at these issues, it's important to know that as a government, we are looking at the planning for needed programs and facilities for people with special needs, in consultation with the broader community.
I'm certainly very familiar with the Woodlands site because it is a very important site within my own community. Working with BCBC in consultation with my community, I am looking forward to a planning study for that site. As the minister knows, at the upper end of that site there are health facilities: Queens Park Hospital; a new facility, William Rudd House, which is designed for younger adults with multiple sclerosis and other illnesses, who require medical support services; and a purpose-built facility for 11 residents and a respite bed for another resident, which is currently under construction and will be a part of the Health ministry's services in the long-term care sector. I think it's really important to note that as we work in these areas, the kinds of ideas that I know the member is referring to need to be shared and talked about. She referred to a comment I made when I was a member of the opposition, which suggests a concept or a plan. Indeed, it was an idea, which I know many people are thinking about, on ways in which health and community facilities can be integrated into the mainstream of the community. As citizens and elected representatives -- whether at the provincial level or at the local council level or as community support groups -- we have a wonderful opportunity to look at ways in which we can plan for the future of people who do have special needs within our community.
I know that process is a challenging one, because people often have fixed ideas about what is the best route to follow. What we need to do is share those ideas, listen to one another and look at ways in which new uses for these very, very important properties, which have served people in our communities for such a long time, can continue to provide for the betterment of the Coquitlam community and the broader community, in the case of Riverview Hospital, and of the New Westminster community and the broader community, in the case of Woodlands.
I look forward to the shared work among various ministries, including the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, which is very experienced because of its work in the redevelopment of the Oakalla lands and Colony Farm to help the communities decide on the best use of these lands, which we as members of British Columbia community hold in trust and which are now going to be designed for new uses in the future.
The upper reaches of the Woodlands property have already been put to very good new uses, and I look forward to the consultation that will take some time. In New Westminster we anticipate that that process will take a good year before those decisions are complete and the rezonings and so on are necessarily there. As we develop that plan for Woodlands in the future, I look forward to working with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services and with the communities that I know the member has had some communication from, as I have. I just wanted to comment on this, because I think it is important for us to see it as an integrated process, where there is neither a specific answer to the question nor a specific time line or vision, but rather a process that we should engage in and be a part of. That's how we come to good decisions that will mean that the future uses of those lands will be ones the community supports, and that will serve all.
L. Reid: If I might beg this committee's indulgence, I return to the member for New Westminster. She seems to have a good grasp of the issues around William Rudd House. I simply have one question: in terms of the criteria for admission, will mentally handicapped people be excluded from William Rudd House?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will attempt to get that answer this afternoon for the member. If the member for New Westminster has the answer on the tip of her tongue now, because she has definitely been involved in this in great detail.... I think everybody in this assembly knows she has taken an excellent and very in-depth interest in redevelopment of lands and health services near her community. I invite her to share the details of that with us. For my part, I'll be glad to get more information by this afternoon, if you require it.
A. Hagen: It's a pleasure to enter into this discussion again with members in committee. I'm sure that the Queens Park Hospital would be happy to share with the member if she asked. Certainly that information is available through the ministry -- the criteria for people who will reside in William Rudd House. I would note that the ministry has responded very well to the work of the hospital board. There's an extensive amount of fundraising going on in the community. The building is going to be ready in very short time, and, I'm sure the members of the committee will be interested to know, it will be supported by a wonderful hydrotherapy pool. B.C. 21 has supported the hospital and community in building it. It will be an adjunct to the 300 people who live in Queens Park Hospital and the new residents who will be looking forward to William Rudd House as a great addition.
L. Reid: I sincerely thank the member for New Westminster. A piece of correspondence that I know has been shared with the minister, because I have received a copy, is from Families for Mentally Handicapped People. They were trying to receive some information from the B.C. Buildings Corporation about future plans. The B.C. Buildings Corporation's letter of February 9 says: "We at BCBC are very much aware of the concerns of some parents and, to this end, we have established as one of our planning goals and objectives to recognize a legacy of education and health care at Woodlands by potentially enabling, among other things, the provision of other programs and services." They are citing specialized supportive housing for individuals with a mental handicap. I appreciate the minister's comments and the member's comments about this being an integrated package. I don't take issue with that. Certainly it seems to me that this will be an issue that requires interministerial cooperation. These questions will be posed to the Minister of Social Services.
These individuals who are writing these letters and receiving these responses believe they are being shunted from
[ Page 14312 ]
one ministry to the other, and neither is providing information. Indeed, the Ministry of Social Services has directed many of these letters to you as the Minister of Health, and I know for a fact that you've directed them back to the Minister of Social Services.
It seems to me that there has to be a way for both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Social Services to have the same information in their possession and to readily share that information. I can certainly attest that I am not the only member of this Legislature who has had these individuals contact their constituency offices. Again, a number of these letters are copied to every constituency office in the province.
We are 75 people frustrating these individuals, because there seems to be some play between the two ministries. I appreciate the minister's comments when he says some of these issues are the responsibility of Social Services. If they could appear on the record in terms of a reasonable response in at least one of the two areas, I would certainly appreciate that.
[11:30]
In terms of future discussions with me as the critic, perhaps we can be clearer in terms of advising constituents as to what their choices are and also who would be the best person for them to contact. Suggesting the ministry, or either ministry, is a bit of a monolithic task in terms of uncovering the one person who may be able to respond to their concerns. The concerns raised by the Families For Mentally Handicapped People are exactly the same concerns that are contained in the Vancouver City Council letter of April 11.
I touched on a number of those concerns, but I might continue, because I think we will nail down some of these comments for further debate. Again, the writers have indicated and brought these four concerns to your attention, hon. minister. The need for a broad range and a greater number of housing units in the community for people with mental illness -- you've certainly commented on that. Acute care hospitals in the province and their ability to serve the needs of the mentally ill -- that issue has tremendous diversity around this province. There are many, many facilities which do not have any support system in place for the mentally handicapped, for individuals who present violent behaviour or for individuals who are suicidal and often not admitted. I know the minister also has much correspondence from families whose family member has gone into emergency, been released and then come to a dire end, if you will. That is a concern which I would ask the minister to comment on.
The responsiveness and adequacy of the community mental health system in the province and the need to address the issues of the system's ability to respond -- that's basically the same issue. The issue is whether or not those individuals receive some kind of response -- and let's contain this, perhaps, to emergency rooms -- in a timely fashion. Often there may indeed be discussion about a plan, but there's no immediate implementation, which renders the program or the future plan useless for the client. Could the minister respond?
Hon. P. Ramsey: First, to wind up the whole issue of the mentally handicapped and care at the Woodlands site -- just to restate it -- those services are clearly with the Ministry of Social Services. I recognize that these cut across issues. I'll be glad to ask the mental health division of the ministry to undertake a coordinated response from both my ministry and the Ministry of Social Services to the individuals that the member refers to. I agree that it's not good enough to say: "Well, go here, go there." Somewhere there must be someone with an answer.
The other thing that I would say very clearly -- just to reinforce what the member for New Westminster said -- is that what we are embarking on here in the redevelopment of Riverview is a process. Those who write to you or me or the other members of the Legislature, saying, "Here's the answer; please make sure that answer is there," are in some ways trying to go around what I think is the correct approach, which is to involve those groups in a coordinated process for the consideration of the redevelopment of those lands.
As for the April 11 letter from the city of Vancouver, there was, as I think the member opposite knows, a fair bit of media attention to the issue of community-based mental health facilities at around the same time. I want to say a couple of things. There are clearly additional gaps in service that need to be filled. What I found distressing in the approach by some in the city of Vancouver -- who I don't think took the time to become informed about services there -- and in the approach of the media were two things. First, there was the characterization of those with serious mental illness as criminals, homeless and drug addicts. That was an underlying theme of some of the discussion that I found quite disturbing and exceedingly unfair to those suffering from a chronic or severe mental condition, and it was exceedingly unfair to the health professionals and care providers who have worked hard to build community-based services over the years and to coordinate community facilities with institutional services at Riverview and acute care hospitals in the Vancouver region.
As for the specifics of the letter, we will be responding to the city of Vancouver. We have also made a clear offer to them that if they need briefing on the details of where plans are going for continued enhancement of community-based services, I'll make sure that my staff meet with their staff so they know what's going on. We'll also say that we should involve the greater Vancouver regional health board in that discussion as well, because they are going to be responsible for delivering that network of services.
I do not want to minimize the concerns. They centre on housing, and I have already commented on our continuing commitment to build housing for those suffering from mental illness. We will continue to do that. It also involves increased coordination of services in institutional and community settings through the good efforts of the greater Vancouver regional health board, the health department of the city of Vancouver and my own ministry. In many cases those services are in place and functioning well, but there are gaps that need to be filled. As I've said, the budgets have increased rapidly for those services in the last couple of years, and this budget continues that increase in funding for community-based services.
With those comments, hon. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:36 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]