[ Page 45 ]

The House resumed at 6:34 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Committee on Bill 5.

On schedule 2 -- Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

M. de Jong: Maybe I can begin by congratulating the minister on his continued role as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in the province of British Columbia, and perhaps invite him to introduce those who are with him.

Hon. J. Cashore: We have Anne Kirkaldy, executive director of management services, and Philip Halkett, deputy minister.

M. de Jong: Just by way of brief introductory remarks, in the weeks and months leading up to the election campaign that just took place, there was what has been described, I think accurately, as a historic set of events relating to the signing of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. And I think it's fair to say that those were historic events. I think most British Columbians would have been affected in a very positive way to see the celebration that existed within the Nisga'a community and among their leadership and the negotiating team as those signatures were affixed -- both in Vancouver and then later in the interior of the province -- on what I suppose will become the Nisga'a lands when a final treaty is ultimately ratified by all parties.

I think that what we have seen develop within the province is a recognition that it is right to be negotiating these agreements. It is right, it is just, and more so, it makes practical sense. The issues that divide us will not simply go away by ignoring them. And yes, there are those who quarrel and present legal arguments about the absolute necessity, by virtue of the letter of the law, for embarking on these negotiations. But the practical reality, based on where we are today, is that there is no turning back. As the minister and others have said, we will ultimately all benefit by the negotiation of final settlements.

Having said that, it was unfortunate, in a way, that the culmination of these events took place in the days so close to the call of the election, when it was apparent to all that there would be an election. The political jockeying that tends to accompany events like this was emphasized all the more by virtue of the fact that those events and those negotiations were taking place so close to an election call. I understand that, and I understand that that affects the stance that a minister of the Crown may take. It will affect necessarily the stance taken by members of the opposition, other members of the House, and whether we like it or not, it impacts on the quality and manner of debate that accompanies those negotiations -- also from the point of view of the aboriginal peoples themselves.

We will obviously canvass this in greater detail as the estimates in the main come before this House. Although one celebrates the achievement of the meeting of the minds that this agreement-in-principle hopefully represents, it does not mean that one is anti-Indian or anti-settlement or anti-negotiation or racist if one purports to criticize the terms of that agreement. I daresay that in the weeks leading up to the election campaign and in the weeks and months surrounding the signing of the agreement-in-principle, that was often the tack. That was often the impression -- sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly -- that members of the government appeared to wish to leave. Anyone who was not with the government 100 percent with respect to that agreement-in-principle was against the aboriginal peoples, and the Nisga'a in particular. That is unfair. It's not true. It's something that, as we embark on a new era following the election, I hope the minister and the government will keep in their minds as we proceed with the debate that is coming with respect to this set of negotiations and others that will follow.

It was unfortunate, as I say, that the culmination of these events with respect to the Nisga'a occurred so closely to the commencement of the election campaign. I suppose the minister might say it was the pressure of that coming campaign that provided the motivation for doing the deal in the first place. That may be so, that may be good, and in some respects it may be not so good in terms of what it has meant for the kind of provisions that are included in the agreement-in-principle.

There is still much that British Columbians don't understand about the process that led to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and the process that continues with respect to other aboriginal negotiations around the province. So I have a series of questions. They are by no means exhaustive, but they might do something within the realm of the debate we are havingtoday, dealing with the limited allocation of budgetary resources. They might shed some light for British Columbians on the role the province is playing, the mechanism by which these negotiations are taking place, the kind of personnel that are involved and how they receive their instructions -- to the extent that they are receiving instructions at all.

I wonder if I can begin by asking the minister a fairly basic question about the people that are negotiating on behalf of British Columbians. How are they selected? Are they people from within the ministry? Who are they? Are they drawn from outside the province? How are they recruited? How do they find themselves at the table purporting to represent the interests of British Columbia in these negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to congratulate the hon. member for being the critic for this portfolio and for the spirit of his comments at the outset. The role each of us has to play is vital in terms of ensuring that we come out of this with a product that does indeed serve the future of all British Columbians in a fair and honourable way, so that we can all look back on it and feel good about the role that we had in that.

I think it can be -- to use that word -- unfortunate to stir the entrails of the period prior to the election and to somewhat subtly try to make the statement that it's because of the approach that you guys took that certain statements were very unfortunate by implication. It begs the question that certain statements were made.

I just want to say to the hon. member that during the election campaign I attended an all-candidates' meeting that was put on by the local chamber of commerce. There was a very partisan crowd in attendance. Anybody who was there at that event would agree that it was 85 to 90 percent in support 

[ Page 46 ]

of the Liberal Party. When there was, I think, a rather ill-considered question put to me, I talked about what it is that we are trying to achieve, to that audience that was certainly not, by and large, supportive of the NDP. I made the statement at that time, as I have on several occasions -- and indeed, in this House -- that this issue is far more important than large-P politics. It's far more important than my political career, and I would suggest it's more important than your political career. It behooves us to try as much as possible to take the large-P politics out of it and put our heads together and, in the very best way that we can, use good and incisive critique on the opposition side, and good and solid work on the government side, so that we can indeed come out of this with something that's very worthwhile.

[6:45]

I can say to the hon. member categorically that I did not use the kind of language the hon. member said was used. I can also say to him that the only time I was aware of the rhetoric getting boosted was in the context of statements proposing to tear up an agreement. Again, those same comments could be made going both ways. But we're not going to achieve anything with that -- stating that it's unfortunate that statements like that were made. But I really think that we're prospective here tonight, and it's not going to serve anybody's purpose to go back into various perspectives on what happened in those days.

I will say, with regard to the days prior to the election -- and I really believe this -- that the treaty-making process with regard to any given negotiation between any given first nation and the two governments is, at least in the earliest treaties, of long duration. Witness the 20 years the federal government and the five years the provincial government have been at the table with regard to the Nisga'a. Those are times of long duration. We really do want to see the process not have to take that long, and as we gain more and more experience, I believe that will be the case -- it won't take that long. It will take much less time, I think, as we gain more and more of a track record.

To say that election timing is the key factor in terms of when something like an agreement-in-principle might be finished is really to beg another question. You could say that about when the final debate in the House might take place leading up to ratification or about when the framework agreement is developed -- that it's based on election timing. So I stand here and say no, hon. member. The agreement-in-principle -- the initialling and the signing -- was not based on election timing. It was based on timing that enabled a job to be done and the readiness to go forward, with that job having been done at that time.

You could just as easily say that if the agreement-in-principle had not been concluded at that time, it would open up the argument that we would then hear, which is that we failed to agree on an agreement-in-principle because we didn't want to face the public going into an election. We would be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

So the best thing to do is step back from that kind of speculation about political timing and get on with the job. When we're ready to take one step at a time, we take that step. The citizens of the province will judge us on our performance, both as opposition and as government. I really think that it's not too helpful for you and I, hon. member, to debate that, because that is how those decisions are made in the final analysis.

With regard to the question about how people are chosen to be negotiators, they go through an extensive process of responding to advertisements about the availability of these positions. They come from a variety of backgrounds and experience, but certainly reflected in those who apply for these jobs are people from the legal profession with regard to expertise they have in the area and people who have worked on some of the northern agreements and have experience. I think we all know that in the modern history of treaty-making, there isn't agreat deal of experience, so it's a relatively new field in the modern context. But there's a careful screening process and a rigorous interview process leading up to the hiring of those people who are in the positions of chief negotiator and the other negotiator positions.

M. de Jong: Well, I hope the hon. minister didn't misinterpret my remarks, because to a great extent they are not inconsistent with his own. The fact of the matter is that the dynamics of electoral politics tend to have an impact, whether he likes it and whether I like it. But he is correct: the fact of the matter is that we have an agreement-in-principle, and our job now is to move forward with that document. He may have a different view of how that can be accomplished than the view I have. He may take a different view with respect to some of the provisions within that agreement-in-principle than I have, and I suspect that the negotiators for the Nisga'a people themselves have their own view that they will present very forcefully at the negotiating table.

With respect, though, to some actual numbers, the minister has indicated in very general terms the recruiting process that is followed. I wonder if he can indicate just how many negotiators his ministry is employing at the moment, whether they represent FTE people within the ministry, whether they are on contract or whether the bulk of them are on contract, because one of the issues that arose with respect to these negotiations and others is the province's willingness or ability to develop expertise that would preclude the need to retain, for example, full-time counsel. Where are we? Is the ministry employing these people on a full-time basis? Are they contracting with them? What kind of numbers are we talking about in terms of negotiators on behalf of the province?

Hon. J. Cashore: We have six chief negotiators, five regional teams and one with the Nisga'a. All but one are full-time employees, and one is a contract employee.

M. de Jong: With respect to regional teams, they would be comprised of approximately how many individuals? And again, are they contract positions? Are they full-time employees of the ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are approximately four additional negotiators on each team.

M. de Jong: As the minister travels the province, as I travel the province, I presume he hears many of the same remarks that I do about the frustrations of people residing in some of the communities that are going to be affected by the settlements as they are finalized. Perhaps the strongest criticism that one hears in places like Williams Lake, Terrace, Stewart and other places right across the province is a sense of suspicion that the interests of those communities are not being forcefully represented at the negotiating table. From the perspective of people residing in these towns -- local politicians, community leaders, civic leaders -- they are tremendously suspicious that some suits are showing up from Victoria and 

[ Page 47 ]

another group of suits is showing up from Ottawa and meeting with the local aboriginal negotiating contingent, and that the interests most directly pertinent to them are being lost in the shuffle.

When these negotiations take place, we're dealing with currency. It might be money, land or natural resources. That currency is tied directly to the communities involved and will affect the lives of those people and their families within those communities. The criticism one hears time and time again is: "You guys on the coast just don't get it. You send your people up here. And we have no confidence in the provincial negotiating team -- even less confidence in the federal negotiating team -- to take account of the concerns that matter most to us." And they ask: "Why can't we have people at the negotiating table?" Not in an advisory capacity, because I'm sure the minister is going to point out that they are there in an advisory capacity. They're in the room, to the extent that they want to be. But why can't they be there in an actual decision-making capacity? What's wrong with that? What are you in Victoria and you in Ottawa worried about in terms of bringing them on board, onto those negotiating teams?

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, some of the assumptions underlying the member's question are certainly from a perspective that you hear. One would expect that from stakeholder groups, from regional parties, who want to be absolutely certain that their interests are represented as well as they possibly can be. Given the task we have at hand and the process we're involved in, it is to be expected that there will be pretty constant expressions from the perspectives of those people with regard to the way their wishes and their visions are being represented.

At the same time, we have a very thorough process that involves advisory committees, advisory processes. One has to consider the logistics of having the kind of numbers at the negotiating table that would be involved in that kind of process. Given that we need to be able to move in a timely way to resolve this process, we are not going to achieve that by creating a circumstance at the table where progress simply cannot be achieved. Therefore we have worked with those communities to develop this process.

There have been complaints made when the negotiations haven't even begun. We know that to be the case. Sometimes complaints have been made on the basis of statements made by people who should know better who have said that negotiations are going on in secret, when negotiations hadn't started yet. There are a lot of those kinds of statements out there. People are upset about it and concerned about it and are trying to deal with it. What we have to do is ensure that the negotiations that go on are negotiations that, at the end of the day, do represent those interests.

At the request of the Cattlemen's Association, I travelled with them and spent a day with them so they could show me the absolutely essential factor with regard to their business: that there be Crown lands as backup to make those operations viable. They made that very, very clear. That point obviously has to be represented effectively, thoroughly and forcefully in those negotiations. That is certainly the way it has to go.

I would point out to the hon. member that the media went up into the New Aiyansh area. They talked to non-aboriginal people in the Nass River area following the initialling of the agreement-in-principle. I believe they tried to find people living in that area -- actual residents -- who would criticize the agreement. What they found, by and large, was people who spoke very positively about it.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have a long way to go, and we will continue to seek to diligently represent the interests of a variety of issues and peoples as we proceed with this. Bear in mind that as the process goes on, it involves the public consultation that results following an agreement-in-principle being concluded. It also involves debate in the Legislature that the Leader of the Opposition, to his credit, referred to during the election campaign when he was asked questions about this. I admire him, because he stuck to a principled position when he responded to those questions.

M. de Jong: With the greatest respect, I'm not sure I heard an answer to the specific question. We had a process described to us here this evening of a negotiating team comprised of a head negotiator and four or five other negotiators. I'll be even more specific. Can the minister offer some explanation for why it would be unworkable for one or two of the members of that team to be local representatives, to be seen by the communities impacted by these negotiations to represent their interests -- or at least to have an understanding of the local issues at play?

[7:00]

You know, if you go into a place like the Cariboo, or if you go into Terrace or into Stewart, the people say to you: "You know, you guys don't get it. You want to understand what it's all about. Why don't you negotiate the Stanley Park claim first? I mean, it's easy for you West Coasters to talk about it because it's land, it's resources, miles and miles away from your homes and your families. But you just don't get it." Why would it be unworkable? The minister is describing a scenario where you've got table upon table of third-party interests sitting around, and maybe that is unworkable. But to have local representatives as part of the limited negotiating team that he's just described for us.... Quite frankly, it strikes me as being entirely workable and entirely preferable.

Hon. J. Cashore: We do have a process.... I think there's some implied criticism of it in the hon. member's remarks, but it is a process that was crafted through negotiations between the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the government of British Columbia. I would just point out that it's the current Leader of the Opposition who, when he was a member of the regional district, had a key role in negotiating -- and, indeed, in promoting -- that memorandum of understanding that was negotiated to enable the participation and the presence of representatives of the region in the process.

So I think we have to agree to disagree with regard to how to get from here to the conclusion, and I do say to the hon. member that I seriously do want to listen to his suggestions, and I suggest that we also have face-to-face meetings to talk about this. But I believe that the process that we are following is a workable process, and I think that as it moves towards the agreement-in-principle stage -- even with the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle that was saddled with the confidentiality clause, which is no longer a problem for us, but it was at that time -- we've found that for the people who live in the area, there was expression of relief and satisfaction when they finally saw that product.

M. de Jong: I will simply repeat, for the sole purpose of having it on the record -- and I think the minister knows this -- that the UBCM takes some exception when the minister makes remarks of the sort he just made, and they will point out that in effect they were left with very little choice. I will put those remarks on the record.

I would like to turn now to the issue of cost, and there is undoubtedly a cost associated with the negotiation and final-

[ Page 48 ]

ization of these treaties: both the costs of negotiating them and the cost of the treaties themselves. We've talked about the different forms of currency that can take: land, resources or cash. My question to the minister is: where, when I look at the budgetary documents -- at the material that we are presently debating -- will I see provision made for some of those costs? What is that provision? When we consider the cost of land purchases that may be necessary, of satisfying third-party interests, compensating third-party interests, where in the budgetary documents do we see some provision being made for what must certainly be deemed to be looming liabilities?

Hon. J. Cashore: You won't see that in the annual budget for this year. You won't see it in the annual budget next year. It might start to show up in the one after that with the pay-out of those actual costs. It certainly won't be within the next two years.

M. de Jong: I guess, to put it bluntly, I question the wisdom of taking that approach. The minister is putting off the inevitable. Is he suggesting that it doesn't make sense to begin to compile the funds now, or is that something we simply leave to future governments, to future generations? He's doing half the job, hon. Chair. His government has committed us to a process that we know -- and by his own admission -- is going to cost a lot of money. Surely it makes sense to recognize that, to begin to budget for that day and begin to compile something in the way of a contingency fund that can be utilized when, as we all hope, some of these treaties are finalized. Surely, the minister can't argue against the wisdom of planning today for what we know and hope is coming tomorrow.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, the comptroller general concurs that no liabilities are incurred until the treaty is signed, and we know that we have quite a ways to go before that happens.

Now, the hon. member is talking about a contingency fund. That's a whole different topic with regard to how you address the issue of dealing with treaty costs. We have tabled the KPMG report, which talks about the long-term costs and the relative relationship of about.... I think it was less than one-quarter of 1 percent on a $20 billion budget, when that's extrapolated over a period of about 40 years. So the hon. member suggests that we start to set up a contingency fund now. Again, he might want to discuss that idea with the comptroller general. We believe, with all due respect, that that's not necessary.

M. de Jong: The minister may have partially answered my next question, but I should point out that the report I read of the meeting of the B.C. tribal chiefs, which he attended with the Premier, indicates that they at least believe a final Nisga'a treaty will be available for ratification as early as January '97. Maybe he's going to tell me that that is not his government's view and his negotiators are telling him something different. Then, will he tell us what he believes? If that is the case -- if one-third of the parties negotiating the agreement are suggesting that it might be six months from now when that agreement is ready to beratified -- it is something that I think is very pertinent to the budgetary deliberations we are now engaged in.

Hon. J. Cashore: With all respect, they do not believe that a final treaty will be concluded in six months. They're talking about their projection of when they'd like to see a final draft concluded, and that is a long way from the end of the road, even if that were the case. We're not that optimistic that it can be accomplished in that period of time, but the fact still remains that you do not begin to incur those expenses until the final treaty is in fact a treaty -- and even in that process the schedule with regard to the payments has to be built in. So all of that has to be factored in with regard to budgets. A budget is a current year's expenditures and revenues, and that will be calculated in a way that will be consistent with the kinds of projections that we saw in the KPMG report.

M. de Jong: I will suggest to the hon. minister that what he is doing is simply putting off the inevitable, and I think the motivation for doing that is clear. We see it in other areas where the government has simply, under the guise of wanting to present what it terms to be a balanced budget.... It doesn't want to take account of these liabilities that it must surely take account of, and it's unwise. Quite frankly, hon. Chair, I submit to the minister that it is a decision and an approach that will come back to haunt his government or another government, and it is irresponsible, in my view.

I would, however, like to explore with the minister.... He raised the question of what our expectations might be with respect to the Nisga'a negotiations. What has taken place in the weeks and months since the initialling of the agreement-in-principle? Where are we? What is the status of the efforts that have been undertaken to move towards a final treaty, and where are we today?

Hon. J. Cashore: There was a meeting as part of that process in Sechelt yesterday. There have been 90 meetings since the signing of the agreement-in-principle, and there will be continued meetings. We find that in the pre-election period there was a tendency for a certain type of focus, obviously, to show up at those public meetings. I think that the so-called stakeholder meetings have been the more productive. These meetings are well advertised. There was one held in Vancouver the other night; I think only about 45 people showed up. But, as I say, there have been 90 such meetings, and these meetings continue to be held.

M. de Jong: Maybe he can indicate whether -- with respect to the Nisga'a exercise itself -- additional experts have been hired. Are there additional people on contract? If so, who are they? What role are they fulfilling? In as specific terms as the minister can provide, what dollar amount within his ministry is being devoted to this process of moving toward a final treaty?

I. Waddell: I hesitate to interrupt my friend's examination -- I was going to say cross-examination -- of the minister.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

I. Waddell: I seek leave to introduce a friend of mine from the gallery.

An Hon. Member: Aye.

The Chair: Let's not prejudge the Chair.

Leave granted.

I. Waddell: I want to introduce to the House an old friend of mine, my former physician, Dr. Lyle Thurston from 

[ Page 49 ]

North Vancouver -- Deep Cove. About 25 years ago he and a couple of friends in Kitsilano, in some basement, founded Greenpeace. I'd like to welcome him to the House, point him out to the House and give him a good welcome. I know he'll hate me for that. That's why I did it.

Hon. J. Cashore: We make use of existing staff, the members of the Nisga'a team, in the meetings with stakeholders and with the community, as well as other personnel from the ministry. There are no additional FTEs to carry out this task.

M. de Jong: I am mindful of a report that occurred just after the signing of the agreement-in-principle, where the minister incurred some criticism -- not from this hon. member -- relative to the retention of certain experts from the legal and accounting communities. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether those individuals remain part and parcel of this process. I should say that the criticism that the minister received from the now independent member for Peace River South turned out to be unfounded, given his own history with those particular individuals.

Hon. J. Cashore: There were some ironies in the source of those comments at that time.

Yes, those personnel still continue to be employed by this government.

M. de Jong: Having heard what the minister has to say about the meetings that have taken place -- about the staff and resources that are being devoted to this exercise -- I guess I'll return back to the original point: have we made any progress? What sections of the agreement have we dealt with to the extent that the minister would say we've achieved closure with respect to taking these provisions from the agreement-in-principle and translating them into the terminology necessary to embody them within a treaty? How have we done? What progress have we made?

[7:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: The progress we have made has been in explaining the document, responding to their questions and hearing their concerns. With regard to closure, I'm not sure what the hon. member means by closure, but no, we haven't said: "Okay, we've closed off these different sections of the AIP, and they are now etched in stone." Not at all. We're taking a holistic approach to hearing the input. We're going to complete that process and then move into the stage of drafting the final document.

M. de Jong: I guess the question -- and the minister has talked about this in the past.... Members of the Nisga'a Tribal Council and the negotiating team have talked about the need to take what appears in the agreement-in-principle....

Let's just take one example. The minister will recall that he and I had a discussion about the question of extinguishment, which is left unsettled in the agreement-in-principle. The language isn't there. The minister has said repeatedly that that is something we will be dealing with with the other parties. I presume that those negotiations or discussions have begun and that part of the budgetary provisions he is seeking ratification for today is to provide him with the means to continue those deliberations and negotiations. Have we settled upon the language that will be embodied within the final treaty with respect to the issue of extinguishment?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, we haven't settled on the language. We're absolutely sure that there is going to be certainty and finality, and we're absolutely sure that we're involved in a process that exchanges vague aboriginal rights for the certainty of treaty rights. We're waiting for Minister Irwin of the federal government on this issue. The ball is clearly in their court, and we are waiting for them to respond to us.

M. de Jong: Do I take it from those comments, then, that the province and the Nisga'a people have settled on a definition that they are content with collectively and that has been presented to the federal government for its consideration?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

M. de Jong: Well, let's try again. Has there been any discussion of that notion of finality, certainty, extinguishment? What negotiations -- and I hope the minister will be specific -- have taken place? He's assured us that that would be a priority in the weeks and months following the signing of the agreement-in-principle.

Hon. J. Cashore: When, in two or three months, we get back to the negotiating table, we will be negotiating an openness protocol first to deal with the problem we had under the previous protocol that had the confidentiality agreement. Our bottom-line position is that that be consistent with the kinds of openness protocols we're negotiating throughout the province. So those negotiations with regard to that wording are not underway; they won't be underway until after that protocol, that first item of business, is concluded.

M. de Jong: Perhaps the minister can reassure me that I am not being inaccurate when I suggest that no progress has been made with respect to negotiating the terms of finality or certainty that need to be embodied in the final treaty.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, when you couch it in the term "negotiations" and then apply that language to it.... Obviously that's how the hon. member wants to craft it. Progress has been made; negotiations haven't started. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

M. de Jong: Again with respect to the Nisga'a agreement, the minister has alluded to the fact that he will be negotiating a new openness protocol, I guess we can call it. Maybe he could share with the House today his vision of what that protocol would look like if he had his druthers. How are we going to ensure that members of the public -- British Columbians in the communities affected -- are left with a feeling of inclusiveness in this process? How is this going to look in the minister's eyes?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe the member knows full well that the documents of the openness protocols that have been concluded, which very clearly spell out our vision, are freely and readily available, and should certainly be on the member's desk, if not in his filing cabinet.

Simply stated, the vision is: the standard is that openness is the order of the day, confidentiality the exception. Given the hon. member's professional discipline, I'm sure he understands that there are times in negotiations when, on the agreement of the chief negotiators, you need to be able to go in camera. And in actual fact, the openness which characterizes these negotiations is a major breakthrough. As George Watts has said, he wished there had been some of this openness when certain agreements were being made with the Hudson's Bay or with residential schools, or whatever the case may be 

[ Page 50 ]

as far as his people were concerned. But he also says, in the interests of living in the future as good neighbours, that he recognizes we have to have this process as open as it can possibly be.

This vision also involves the availability of cable TV and the media coming into those meetings, as well as the general public. As was commented in Prince Rupert about three months ago, the chief negotiator for the Tsimshian was deploring the fact that no non-aboriginal people were showing up at those negotiations. After all the talk we heard about it, they weren't showing up. And he was upset about that, because he thought that would have been a very useful and helpful part of the process in terms of enabling the public to be fully cognizant of what was happening in that process.

Again, George Watts said at the Nuu-chah-nulth table that the only time people show up is for the coffee break. Be that as it may, the fact is that if I'm watching a Grizzlies game and I'm channel-surfing after the second quarter is over and I see those negotiations going on, say, up in Sechelt, well, it's pretty boring. But it's nice to know it's there, and it's nice to know I can choose to watch that if I want to. So openness means it's open to the public, open to the media, and that there is an encouragement to the community to come in and be present.

M. de Jong: The minister will know that one of the criticisms levied his way following the signing of the agreement-in-principle was that it was very uncertain in the minds of many British Columbians what process he and his government intended to follow with respect to presenting that document for consideration -- for review by those who weren't directly involved in its negotiation.

I think the minister presented, in an ad hoc fashion and in a hurried way, a plan that he said would satisfy those concerns in terms of public hearings. But I guess the question I have for him now is: why wouldn't he avoid that very same criticism, which I can guarantee him is going to come his way if he suddenly emerges from a negotiating process and announces that we've got a treaty that's going to be ratified on such-and-such a date? Why not lay out the schedule in detail now? I realize to some extent that may be difficult, but lay it out for all to see now, so that guys like me can't levy the criticism that we did following the signing of the agreement-in-principle when there was no schedule, or no pre-assurances were given.

Hon. J. Cashore: Our schedules often do have a negative impact with regard to such a complex process, because they set artificial deadlines. At the same time, I think that if we could get agreement among the three parties on a general projected time line, that would be useful. I have discussed that, and I'm certainly continuing to discuss it. It takes three parties to agree on that kind of projection, but under certain terms I think that would be useful.

M. de Jong: I am advised that a treaty, an agreement of this magnitude, of such historical significance, and with such monetary implications, would not have been considered by the cabinet without some recommendation from Treasury Board, and without some consideration having been given to it by Treasury Board with respect to its financial implications for the fiscal well-being of the province. Can the minister indicate whether that is in fact the case?

Hon. J. Cashore: I can assure the hon. member that all the appropriate mechanisms of governance have gone into the considerations that have been announced.

M. de Jong: Lamentably, I have never had the benefit of coming face to face with those usual mechanisms of government, so perhaps the minister can indicate whether the usual mechanisms of government would include consideration, review and recommendation of the agreement-in-principle by Treasury Board.

Hon. J. Cashore: Some of these questions are before the fact, and I stick with my answer.

M. de Jong: The fact that the cabinet ratified the agreement-in-principle suggests otherwise. It's surely not before the fact. I'm asking the minister whether, when he took the document to cabinet, it had been considered by Treasury Board and had an accompanying recommendation.

Hon. J. Cashore: The process involves mandate approval at cabinet, and before that mandate approval it must have the approval of Treasury Board.

M. de Jong: Well, we seem to be getting somewhere. Is the minister prepared to release the recommendation that accompanied the presentation of the agreement-in-principle to cabinet?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

M. de Jong: To the minister: why not?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's confidential material. It's advice to government. We have made very clear what our mandate was. We negotiated within that mandate.

M. de Jong: I know that the minister will agree we are dealing with public dollars and the expenditure of public dollars, and surely he would not suggest that a recommendation from Treasury Board regarding the expenditure of those dollars is something that shouldn't be before the public as they consider the merits of this agreement-in-principle.

Hon. J. Cashore: Everything that Treasury Board had to say is implicit within every action the government took.

M. de Jong: I haven't got a clue what that means.

Maybe I'll ask this question: the fact that something is implicit in the actions of cabinet hardly goes to the issue of why the people of British Columbia can't be privy to the recommendation that this cabinet received regarding the expenditure of their tax dollars.

Hon. J. Cashore: We followed Treasury Board instructions. They are therefore implicit within the mandate within which we negotiated.

M. de Jong: Then why does the minister display such reluctance in sharing with us the terms and the specifics of the recommendation he assures us his cabinet followed implicitly?

[7:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is fully aware that all Treasury Board advice to cabinet is confidential. He's also aware that the Treasury Board advice has been followed through to the letter in the mandate within which we negotiated.

[ Page 51 ]

M. de Jong: The minister won't share the documentation. He suggests that somehow I have some magical connection and therefore must surely understand that it was followed. It's just ludicrous. It's early in the term, so the flow of manila envelopes hasn't begun with the rapidity that I'm sure it will later in the term. Perhaps the minister is relying on that usual flow of information. But I caution the minister that he has been coy and to some extent very clever. He's a very able politician. But people in this province will not take kindly to ministers of the Crown being coy and clever with their tax dollars. And woe betide him if that document does find its way and does not suggest precisely what the minister has alluded to in the House today.

But let's deal with one other aspect relating to the Nisga'a agreement, specifically the provisions for capital transfer payments. It's a basic question arising out of the events of the past few days. Does the freeze on capital payments that's been announced -- and I suppose the minister would say it's unlikely that these would proceed in the next six to 12 months -- apply to the provisions of this agreement-in-principle?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. It should be clear, from the earlier exchange that we had, when, during the budget cycles, this is going to start showing up in the budget. We've already dealt with the fact that it's not in this budget year.

M. de Jong: The minister should.... I'll ask him to indulge my simple mind, but the question was: does it apply? Now, he may be quite correct. He obviously is much more pessimistic than the Nisga'a people about the likelihood of a final agreement being reached within the next six to 12 months. But if that happens, are these payments captured by the freeze? That's a very simple question.

Hon. J. Cashore: As my friend says, it's kind of a ludicrous question, given that the freeze is on capital expenditure, not on this type of expenditure.

With regard to the statement that was just made again and repeated -- they often say if you repeat a statement long enough, it enters people's perception that it must be true -- the statement that the Nisga'a made, about six months from now.... They're not talking about a final treaty when they make that statement. The hon. member, who's very knowledgeable about this process, is aware of that.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can just leave the Nisga'a round for the moment and ask the minister to comment on the criticism that he received recently from the chairman of the B.C. Treaty Commission, Mr. Robertson, where he alleged that there were inherent contradictions -- those were his words, not mine -- in the government's policy and minister's policy with respect to the utilization and negotiation of interim measures agreements.

I should be candid and will be. The minister knows that on this side of the House we have not favoured the negotiation and the devotion of resources to these interim measures agreements. We think that time, money and energy are better spent negotiating final agreements, and that all we do is head down a path that perhaps buys some time but doesn't resolve the ultimate issue.

The point is, now, that the minister has quarrelled on that very point with us on this side of the House time and time again, and argued the need to negotiate these interim measures agreements. His public pronouncements have been to the effect that they are laudable and necessary. And now the chairman of the Treaty Commission is saying that, within the realm of the negotiations, the position being taken by the government, by the ministry, is quite different, that they are in fact adopting an opposite position. Those are his words, not mine. But it is a spectacle that, I would submit, we're unaccustomed to in this province -- to have a minister subjected to the kind of criticism that goes to the heart of an issue the way this minister has been criticized by Mr. Robertson.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to say at the outset that I have the utmost respect for Mr. Robertson and for the neutrality of his position and the way in which he conducts himself within that position.

First point. It's interesting and ironic that the Liberal Party, which states very clearly and honestly and openly that it is opposed to interim measures, also states in its 10-point, 11-point or 12-point plan -- depending on what date it happens to be and who happens to be releasing it -- that it supports the B.C. treaty process. Now, when you support the B.C. treaty process, it means by that fact that you accept the recommendations of the task force that brought the B.C. treaty process into being. The task force report states that the three parties agree there will be interim measures. If you look at that task force report, there are five definitions of interim measures, covering a spectrum all the way from a conversation to a formal agreement. The member is quite right: we are seeing fewer formal agreements now than we did earlier on, in the wake of the Delgamuukw and other decisions.

We have developed our policy with regard to interim measures within the treaty-making process, which makes it very clear that where the matter of protection of any land becomes involved, it should be later in the process rather than earlier so that we don't unnecessarily tie up tracts of land that could then have a negative impact on the commerce of the province. We believe that if were to take that approach -- which some have implied is intended in the alleged criticism the hon. member refers to -- if we were to multiply that by, say, 47 treaty-making processes throughout the province, it would have a very serious impact upon the commerce of the province.

Obviously, this process is about enabling British Columbians to work together. It has to be a process that works, and we believe the approach we are taking is enabling that to happen. We believe that our interim measures process is consistent not only with the B.C. Treaty Commission but also with the court cases that have come down identifying a fiduciary responsibility and a need to negotiate undefined aboriginal rights.

M. de Jong: That explanation might ordinarily be satisfactory, but the commissioner used some pretty strong language. He said that the ministry's policy was undermining negotiations and that the honour of British Columbia was being sacrificed by virtue of what he saw as a deliberate shift in policy.

Hon. A. Petter: Nonsense.

M. de Jong: That was his categorization of what was taking place. The Finance minister says: "Nonsense." Those are not my words; they're the words of the chairman. I think the minister has to go further and provide some assurance that there hasn't been a shift, because the commissioner obviously takes a different view when he says that the ministry is undermining negotiations and that British Columbia's honour has been sacrificed by virtue of a shift in policy.

[ Page 52 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I make no apology for the fact that we have developed policy on interim measures pursuant to treaty negotiations, and I just explained what that is. That's not a shift. That's a very positive affirmation of a policy that we have developed to enable us to negotiate treaties effectively and deal with the interim protection measures, which are part and parcel of every treaty -- northern treaties, no matter what they may be. The language of a shift, as though somehow there's something going on there that is....

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: I know that the hon. member conveniently says we don't even support interim measures, but then he tries to characterize a position that has the support of no viable political party in the province.

The fact is that the government is absolutely confident in the evenness, the neutrality and the effectiveness of the approach we have taken, which is a balanced approach which recognizes the interests of both parties in very difficult circumstances.

M. de Jong: To put an end to the matter, it's unfortunate that the chairman of the Treaty Commission doesn't share the confidence just expressed by the minister.

I wonder if I can ask the minister about circumstances as they exist with respect to the litigation surrounding the McLeod Lake band, which, as I understand it, was at one point very close to settlement and would have involved the expenditure of some moneys. I could return to that line of questioning: where is the provision for the McLeod Lake settlement contained within these budgetary figures? But that would perhaps be pre-emptive on my part. What is the status with respect to that litigation?

Hon. J. Cashore: The negotiations were not successful, and the litigation is scheduled for some point next year. I don't have a precise date.

M. de Jong: I wonder if the.... I suspect I know the answer to this question. The minister obviously was in a position where a final offer was tabled by the government, by the ministry. I won't ask him to outline the terms of that now. I will ask, however, whether he's prepared to disclose the terms of the final offer that was made and apparently rejected.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll give that serious consideration.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can ask the minister to turn his mind to the situation that continues unresolved at Adams Lake, and in particular the transportation provisions that have been made for the residents there. The residents -- I say, in that context, the non-aboriginal people -- are clearly suffering. Obviously, their ability to get to and from their homes has been impacted by the road closure. I know there has been litigation that I believe involved some of those residents taking the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia to court. I believe that was resolved in favour of the Crown -- the specific litigation. Nonetheless, there is a feeling amongst those people that they have, at a minimum, been misled about the status of that road, and I think that feeling is legitimate, if not something that was sustained in the courts.

The ferries aren't working, and I wonder if the minister could provide us with some indication of what plans are afoot to try to improve that situation -- whether there are negotiations ongoing to try to reach a settlement and an arrangement that is more workable for all.

[7:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: That is a question best put to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, although I don't want to indicate in any way that I'm not interested in and concerned with the issue of the Adams Lake situation, and don't monitor that. With regard to the ferry, I've just heard recently that the ferry is not.... I don't think it's correct to say it's not working, but I have heard it stated that it's not adequate.

I was just saying when you were chatting there, hon. member -- through you, hon. Chair -- that I haven't heard anyone say that it's not working; I've heard it said that it's not adequate. I think that, obviously, that's an important line of questioning for us to pursue between myself and the Minister of Transportation and Highways -- and also in estimates discussions.

I want to make it very clear that the province has actively supported tripartite negotiations involving the federal government and the Adams Lake Indian band. To date, the federal government and the Adams Lake Indian band have not agreed on the terms of reference. We are prepared to go to the table when they do.

M. de Jong: I would then alert the minister, if he is prepared to have those discussions with the Department of Transport, to the fact that I am advised that the present contract governing the provision of that ferry service expires on July 24. If there were ever an opportunity to make some amendments, some changes, to the service that's being provided -- which I'm told is inadequate in terms of the scheduling -- now is the time to do it. The contract is coming up for renewal. I suspect that the minister will have no difficulty giving me his assurance that those discussions and the renegotiation of the ferry contract can take place.

The other thing I want to ask him is whether he sees.... Surely he will agree that the provision of a ferry is not a final resolution of this matter and that it requires something in the way of more permanency.

Hon. J. Cashore: I absolutely agree with that. It's not a final solution; it's not a satisfactory solution; it's an interim solution. We do have to have the political will on the part of the Adams Lake Indian band and the federal government to join us in those tripartite discussions. I'm not satisfied with it; I don't think anybody is.

The Chair: With that, are there no further questions? If there are no further questions, I will call the Attorney General's warrants. We will just pause a few minutes while staff leave and the Attorney General's staff enter.

On schedule 2 -- Ministry of Attorney General.

G. Plant: I want to begin, if I may, by congratulating the Attorney General on his reappointment to what is probably one of the most important offices of the Crown. It's a high and noble calling to be Attorney General, and I do want to extend my congratulations to the hon. Attorney General on his reappointment.

I have a number of questions on a variety of topics. I want to begin, if I may, by asking a few questions about the organi-

[ Page 53 ]

zation of the provision of legal services. I am, I suppose, beginning my interest at page 74 of the estimates under the heading of ministry operations.

I'm sure the Attorney General will forgive me if I say that the reorganization of some of these expenditures into different categories is occasionally less easy to follow. I'm not sure yet that I have a clear sense of the difference between criminal justice and community justice.

But dealing first with the issue of legal services and the definition as that appears, I note that there appears to be about a $1.3 million increase in this category in the expenditure budget for the year that we're now in. I wonder -- and I hope the Attorney General will forgive me if I am ignorant in asking this question: does the Attorney General follow a practice of internal accounting for the delivery of legal services by the Ministry of Attorney General to other ministries? Another way of asking the question is: does the Attorney General, in effect, bill other ministries for the provision of legal services to them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: First of all, let me introduce the two people I have with me: Maureen Maloney, the deputy minister, and Barbara Kaiway, the director of resource planning and analysis.

With respect to the question that the hon. member has raised, we usually don't charge other ministries for legal services that we provide to them. That's our function. In some instances we do charge -- for instance, if we do any work for Securities or with respect to the Forest Practices Code and areas such as that.

G. Plant: The question I would ask, then, is: is there any process by which the Attorney General's provision of legal services to the other branches of government is reviewed generally for quality and in particular for the value received in relation to the cost of the service delivered?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those kinds of issues, hon. member, are always under review. This is a matter which is receiving our attention at this time. In fact, we are looking at -- maybe at a future date -- beginning to charge on an hourly basis for the services we provide on a chargeback basis. That's not a decision that has been made, but these kinds of issues are always under review -- to be more cost-effective.

G. Plant: When the Attorney General says these kinds of issues are always under review, I wonder if he could be more specific about the review processes, if any, that are underway right now in that area.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that a couple of years ago there was a process begun to look at the number of hours that we provided in services for each of the ministries. It is my understanding that we are now looking at the possibility of introducing a system whereby we provide certain minimum services -- a minimum number of hours of service for a particular ministry, if we can rationalize it -- beyond which we may then begin to have a chargeback process in place.

G. Plant: I am wondering if I might now direct the attention of the Attorney General to the reference on page 74 to the grant that is provided to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. I understand that this may be a bit of a detailed question, but I wonder if the Attorney General is able to advise the House of the amount of that specific grant and also of the rationale for the assistance provided by way of grant.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have the information at hand with respect to the cost. However, with respect to the rationale, these kinds of conferences -- and this one in particular -- are important for uniformity in our approach on some fundamental questions across the country. So we bring together provincial bureaucrats, lawyers, experts and academics who assist us in arriving at some uniform approaches to some basic issues, so that it's easier doing business across the country.

G. Plant: Recognizing that, then, and perhaps building upon that statement of approach, I want to now ask the hon. Attorney General, if I may, some questions about the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. Specifically, the first question would be whether you're in a position to advise the House as to the amount which is to be allocated to the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia by the ministry -- by the government -- in the current fiscal year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the amount is $300,000, but we are currently reviewing that matter. Once the review is complete we would know for sure how much it would be.

G. Plant: My understanding is that prior to 1994-95, the amount budgeted for the government's contribution to the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia was $715,000, and that in that year there was a significant reduction in the amount allocated by the government, and that since then the cut in funding has impaired the ability of the commission to do its job, and that in addition to that there has been a difficulty with the reappointment or the appointment of members of the commission, such that at present the actual membership of the commission has fallen below the statutory minimum. I would therefore ask the Attorney General if it is the commitment of this government to ensure that the Law Reform Commission will be adequately funded and to ensure that appointments will be made to reinstate the membership of the commission to its full complement.

[8:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The government recognizes the very important work done by the Law Reform Commission. Due to the cost pressures that we all face in government, the budget was cut in half, essentially. I understand that the exact allocation was $374,000. It's important for us to remember, in the context of all the cost pressures, the important work that the Law Reform Commission does. It is my intention to complete a review of that and see if we can have that function carried on -- whether with the same structure or a different structure, and perhaps with a view to reducing the cost pressures on government. Perhaps the Law Society, the CBA and the Law Foundation might be interested in contributing a quarter each, and the government might be able to contribute a quarter to this important work that's done by the Law Reform Commission. All of those questions are currently under review, and I will be seeking input from the bar and other interested stakeholders.

G. Plant: I am wondering if the Attorney General has any timetable in mind for carrying out this review and completing it, so that the members of the public know when this new beast -- whatever it is to be -- is to come into being.

[ Page 54 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This issue would be dealt with somewhat quickly. There are cost pressures facing the government, and there are those decisions to be made. I don't believe in leaving any issue in limbo if I can help it, and I think this is an issue where a decision would be made in the very near future. I would ask now and later for people who are interested in this issue to be in touch with me, so that we can hear what they may have to say. I did discuss this issue in my meeting with the Law Society during the election campaign when they were asking questions of me as to matters of policy, and I said as much then.

G. Plant: I want to change the subject now to the important subject of public safety. I noted with interest the commitment made by the government in the Speech from the Throne earlier this week to the hiring of 100 additional community police officers. The question that I suppose I have is -- maybe it's more than one question: where will these police officers be going, and what is the process by which those decisions will be made?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, there will be a process in place to determine where these police officers would be funded, and that process would take into account the needs and concerns of the police boards, the police forces across the province and the RCMP. I am sure that what we want to do is to bring all of them together so that we can collectively then determine how best to advance this cause of distributing police resources across the province and in fact enhance community policing, which is where the thrust is with respect to this increase in the number of police officers.

G. Plant: I take it from the answer of the Attorney General to the last question that the process -- that is, the process by which these decisions will be made -- is as yet unknown or uncertain; it's something that is, like a number of other matters, being worked on.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, as the hon. member knows, this has just been announced as part of the budget. An announcement was made in the pre-election period, but obviously that does not take concrete shape until or unless this kind of matter is dealt with in the budget. It's just been dealt with, and we would be putting in place a process to consult the communities across the province.

G. Plant: I wanted to be sure that I heard from the Attorney General something that I think I did, which is a commitment on his part to consult with communities concerning the allocation of these community police officers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, there is a commitment to consult the communities, including the UBCM and the police forces across the province.

G. Plant: I wanted to move, if I might, briefly to a publication called Budget '96, which has a brief heading entitled "Making Our Communities Safer." This is one of the pieces of publicity that the government issued at the time the budget speech came down. Under the heading "Making Our Communities Safer," the author of this document says: "This budget provides funding to keep our communities and streets safe. New initiatives include...." Then there's a reference to three categories of initiatives. First is the establishment of a major crime investigation unit, second is an initiative with respect to fighting prostitution, and third is what I take to be the Nights Alive initiative.

My first question to the Attorney General in relation to this is: what are the other initiatives the government has in mind in addition to these three, which will constitute the provision of funding to keep our communities and streets safe?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In addition to the three that the hon. member referred to, there is, of course, the increased number of police officers, which he also referred to. We have funded the DNA lab as well as the forensic dentistry lab at UBC. We're also looking at increased funding in terms of crime prevention and the neighbourhood crime prevention offices, to the extent that we can. We believe that the communities need to be strengthened and assisted in dealing with the crime, and police alone cannot do that without actually involving the communities at the grass-roots level.

G. Plant: I want to move on to another topic briefly, which is capital spending for correctional facilities. I wonder if the Attorney General is able to identify any proposed correctional facilities that are affected by the capital freeze announced in the budget earlier this week.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm unable to confirm any of the projects as being or not being on the list, because I believe the list has not yet been announced. It may be announced Tuesday or Wednesday next week, and at that time the hon. member and I will both learn what those projects are.

G. Plant: I take it that the implication of that answer is that those who are involved in all such projects in the province of British Columbia, whose activities may have been thrown into a state of uncertainty as a result of the announcement in the budget, will have to live with that state of uncertainty for several more days.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Finance is cognizant of that issue. For all we know, that announcement may be tomorrow at the earliest. It may be Tuesday.

G. Plant: I want to ask some questions now about the general subject of legal aid. Perhaps I could begin by asking the Attorney General this: what is the cost of legal aid to the government this year, and where will I find it in the estimates?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have agreed in a memorandum of understanding with the Legal Services Society that this year they could utilize up to approximately $93 million. That is made up of three different figures. If the hon. member is interested in the details, I can give him those details. He will find that included in the estimates for community justice.

G. Plant: Is that an increase over the previous year? If so, by how much?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have the figures for '95-96, but for '96-97 there is $81.5 million in the base grant, a one-time grant of $5.7 million and an additional grant of $6.2 million in consideration of the deficit at the end of '94-95. That makes approximately just over $93 million.

G. Plant: At least two components of that $93 million total appear to be payments necessary to bring this system back up into a state of something loosely approaching solvency. I suppose that's not unusual. The history of legal aid 

[ Page 55 ]

seems to be that the government allocates a certain amount every year, and every year the Legal Services Society needs more money before the year is over. Why is this year going to be any different from last year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have a memorandum of understanding with the Legal Services Society, and part of that is to have a jointly sponsored management review of the Legal Services Society operations, which would then.... At least it might enlighten us as to what we need to do to deal with that cost pressure. I think it's important that we recognize that costs are mounting in terms of legal aid; they have been for years. They've gone up, in fact, quite significantly over the last two or three years.

What we want to do at the end of the day, after the review is complete, is to make sure that we have a process and a structure in place that continues to meet the needs of the clients that Legal Services has and of the people who need those services, and that we're able to do it within the amounts that we, the taxpayers -- all of us in British Columbia -- can afford. I think it's important that when all of us live within our means, so should the Legal Services Society, and that's what we're aiming at.

L. Reid: I too have some questions for the hon. Attorney General. This individual knows that I've been to discussions, both with himself and with the deputy minister, around accountability measures for legal aid. I would very much love to hear from the minister this evening what kinds of mechanisms have been put in place. The discussion has been ongoing, I know, for probably upwards of two years.

How are those dollars spent? Where is the variance around the province? Indeed, how many times do individuals come back into the process, back into the system? The ministry had no ability to provide that information to me when I served in the capacity of critic. It seems to me that that is an issue of accountability. When we're talking about the difference of $81 million to $93 million, we're indeed agreeing to spend more dollars on this topic. How best to decide if these are reasonable expenditures? I would ask the minister to kindly comment.

[8:15]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The management review that I talked about is, I think, the key to what may happen in the very near future. What I want to do is get hold of that review once it's complete and deal with the issues of accountability. I think that in the past the issue of the independence of the Legal Services Society and the way it functioned has been very, very important, and over the last year or so the issue of accountability has been brought into focus. So when the taxpayers of British Columbia fund a particular organization to the tune of $90 million or so every year, there needs to be accountability attached to it. I'm prepared to entertain any suggestions or proposals that the opposition might have as to how we can bring accountability back into the equation.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments in terms of the management review perhaps bringing us some guidance on that question. I have also appreciated over time the need for some anonymity regarding the use of legal services. But I think the sentiment on behalf of the public is changing when it comes to $93 million, and they wish to know whether or not we're paying out that sum of money for a regular clientele, if you will, and if people are coming to that service more than once in any given calendar year. It seems to me those kinds of questions may flow from the management review, and I trust that information will come before the House fairly soon.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I hope so.

J. Dalton: I'm glad my two colleagues have raised this issue, because I've got some documents in front of me that I was going to introduce, but I don't need to get into all the detail. The Attorney General kindly provided us with the figures which are in his press release of April 3, 1996, which, of course, is trying to resolve this longstanding financial issue of legal aid.

I have one document in front of me -- maybe it's not a document; actually two -- that I will make quick reference to. On February 23 of this year the Attorney General said -- and he's quoted in the Vancouver Sun -- that he wouldn't provide any more funding for legal aid; that enough is enough. Well, we all agree with that. However, he has very kindly allowed them $6.2 million to eliminate their deficit from '94-95, and he's provided a further $5.7 million to reduce the '95-96 debt. Well, that's not "no more funding," hon. Attorney General; that's throwing good money after bad.

I make reference as well to an editorial in the Vancouver Sun of March 4 of this year. Among other things, they comment at length on the financial problems of legal aid and the obvious mismanagement, and make reference in the last paragraph to the firing of my school board -- North Vancouver -- and raise, I think, a very legitimate issue. If this government is prepared to dismiss a duly, democratically elected school board because they ran up a deficit, why is this government not dealing with this longstanding and ever-contentious issue of the deficit and the funding problems with legal aid? I haven't heard an answer tonight other than that they're looking at the problem. Well, we know what the problem is. It's like workers' compensation. We all know what the problem is, but they have no solutions.

It's the taxpayer that we on the opposition side speak on behalf of, and I just wish this government had some concept of fiscal reality and responsibility. With all respect to the Attorney General, I think the mishandling of legal aid over the years is a shame. I'm hoping this Attorney General will pay attention to people like David Griffiths and the bar who have written -- and I have these letters on file -- some very good suggestions about how to get a handle on the management of legal aid, but he doesn't seem to want to listen to that advice. So I just make that comment.

I might also ask the Attorney General, because I'm on my feet and I will ask a question.... Going back to 1992, the then Minister of Finance, now the Premier, introduced Bill 9, which put a tax on legal services. One comment the now Premier made at that time, dealing with legal aid in particular, was: "An additional revenue source had to be found to offset the cost of this program." Can the Attorney General tell us what the annual revenue produced by the legal services tax is? Is that money going to deal with the legal aid issue, or is it just falling into the great black hole of general revenue, and there's no accountability for it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has asked a multifaceted question. I might forget some parts of it, but let me try to answer the ones that I do remember.

Hon. member, the Legal Services board is appointed by three entities, essentially: the provincial government, the Law 

[ Page 56 ]

Society, and the community law offices and aboriginal law offices. I would take it from the hon. member's comments that perhaps it is the suggestion ofthe opposition that we fire the board if we believe they aren't doing the job. I would certainly appreciate clarification of that suggestion.

On the issue with respect to the PST, I understand that we raise, from the PST on the legal profession, to the tune of $73 million a year. Much more than that, as the hon. member is aware, has been used to fund legal services.

G. Plant: I want to continue with the theme of legal aid. While I appreciate that the Attorney General is looking for solutions, I understand that in the recent past there has been at least one experiment followed in an attempt to deal with this issue, and that is the use of staff lawyers as opposed to outside counsel. I wonder if the Attorney General is in a position to advise the House of how many staff lawyers were hired for legal aid in the past year and how many support staff service that group of lawyers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have those figures. I could get those for the hon. member for the estimates.

G. Plant: In terms of understanding what the solution is to the problem, I suppose it's best to keep track of just how various alternatives and solutions that have been implemented are working. Perhaps I could continue the questioning, then, by asking whether the hon. minister could say how many cases were handled by these staff lawyers over the past year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have the information, but I can get that for the estimates, as well.

G. Plant: The question I would ask is whether there has been to date any cost-benefit analysis conducted by the ministry of the government's move toward a staff lawyer model versus the previous tariff model. That is, does the government have any sense at all whether the staff lawyer model is working as an efficient mode of delivering legal services?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there has been some preliminary evaluation done. I do not have the figures for that. I also understand that the evaluation has been terminated as a result of the contract for such evaluation being terminated.

I think the larger issue, hon. member, is.... I can tell you that I'm not ideologically wedded to any one particular model for the delivery of legal services. What we want to do is arrive at the best solution, the most affordable solution, where we can service those who need those services within the means that we, as British Columbians, have at our disposal.

I would be prepared to look at any suggestions the opposition might have to solve this problem, because this is a problem that has been longstanding. What we want to make sure of is that we have the best mix of all of the different types of delivery. There might be some staff delivery, there might be some put out to tender, and there might be some done based on tariff.

What's important is that in the next few months and weeks I'm going to be looking at this issue. I'm waiting for the management review to come in. We're going to be consulting with the bar and community law offices as well as with all the other stakeholders. If we can actually consult with those who receive the services from the Legal Services Society -- the client base -- I would like to consult with them as well, to see how we can better deliver those services.

G. Plant: The question I would ask, then, is whether the review that the Attorney General refers to and the dialogue that the Attorney General is talking about would include not only the organization of the delivery of legal services but factors such as eligibility criteria, the scope of service provided, and indeed almost every aspect of the provision of legal aid.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have been discussing the issue and the scope of the management review with the Legal Services Society. These are some of the issues that are on the table. At the end of the day, with all of the cost pressures that we have, there might have to be changes made. There might be some services that we can't provide and some services that we must provide, and all of that could be reviewed. There's nothing sacred in that sense.

G. Plant: I want to change the subject now and deal with the issue of human rights, which is an aspect of the Attorney General's ministerial responsibilities. The estimates on page 74 disclose an increase in funding or expenditure for the British Columbia Council of Human Rights from just under $3.8 million to over $5.2 million for the current fiscal year. Could the Attorney General outline the reasons for that increase in funding?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That increase is a result of the fact that we're trying to implement the new legislation, which changes the structure of the delivery of human rights protection in British Columbia. As well, we want to take care of the two- or three-year backlog that we have. It takes, on average, two to three years for a complaint to be dealt with at this point, and I think that that's not acceptable in British Columbia. As a result, we will be paying more money in the short run, but in the long run I think that the budget may stabilize.

G. Plant: I take it, then, that included in the implementation of the Black report in the legislation is a specific commitment for the additional funding necessary to get rid of the backlog.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is.

G. Plant: I find that the subject of legal aid has excited the interest of a number of my colleagues on this side of the House who don't think that all of the questions which ought properly to be asked about this important subject have been asked. I'll sit down and see if someone else wants to stand up.

The Chair: It's also true that there are more estimates to come, so you don't have to do it all tonight.

J. van Dongen: The subject of legal aid is one that's very disturbing to me, personally, in my riding. It's something that I've had an interest in. I have three questions for the minister.

The first one is that I recently got some information indicating that in the fiscal year 1994-95 we spent $27 per capita on legal aid in British Columbia. That's the second-highest expenditure by a province in Canada. The lowest in Canada is New Brunswick, at $3.81 per capita. I'm wondering if the minister has any knowledge of the difference in the systems. And if he doesn't, then I suggest we should check it out.

[8:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the eligibility criteria in the province that the hon. member mentioned are very, 

[ Page 57 ]

very restrictive. In fact, there is no family law coverage to speak of in that province, and of course we have that coverage in British Columbia. That's part of the legislation; it's part of the legislative mandate for the Legal Services Society.

J. van Dongen: If I look at the record of spending on family matters within the legal services budget, and if I go back about 12 years, it was $1 million to $2 million a year. In a ten-year period, it grew to about $35 million a year. I find that very disturbing.

When I look at cases and see the impact on families of what I think is an adversarial court system, I question whether that money -- or at least a big portion of that money -- wouldn't be better spent on mediation services of some kind. I'm thinking it would probably save us cash. But it would also have a more positive impact within society and probably have less cost to us in terms of social services. Very often we have people initiating actions -- custody and access actions, for example, ad nauseam, years after the relationship broke up -- and we're paying for both sides of it. I just wonder if you could comment on mediation.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are currently looking at mandatory mediation. We have looked at the family justice centres that have been established across British Columbia. The evaluation has come in. They're very successful. I think we need to inject some element of mandatory mediation, so that we can keep some of the disputes and the litigiousness away from the courts and deal with it in an environment that is more conducive to early resolution of these issues. I am sure that would prove to be a cost-saver at the end of the day.

J. van Dongen: I want to finish with an example of a case that came to my attention. I was aware of the case, but an incident came to my attention just last night. We have a situation in Abbotsford. We have a fellow who murdered his wife. He's being held in jail pending trial, as I understand it. He started an action against the grandmother of the three kids who were left. She's the only person left in the family to look after those kids. If the grandmother wasn't doing it, the government would be doing it. He starts a custody and access action from his jail cell, on legal aid. The night before they get into court after a six-month waiting period, he fires his lawyer. So the trial is now delayed from June to September. I think it's just an absolutely disgusting example of the misuse of taxpayers' money under legal aid.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, obviously the hon. member knows that if the matter is before the courts, I cannot comment. If there is any particular individual case with respect to legal aid, the hon. member should approach the Legal Services Society, point out what's happening and see how they might change their policies. It is within their legislative mandate until or unless we review that legislation with respect, perhaps, to accountability and those kinds of issues -- which might happen.

B. Penner: Before I begin tonight, I'd like to extend a welcome to my former dean of law, Maureen Maloney. She was the dean of the law school at the University of Victoria, where I attended from 1989 to 1992.

An Hon. Member: How did she slip up?

B. Penner: Somehow she let me through the system -- an obvious mistake.

Interjection.

B. Penner: We'll find out.

I too have a few questions with respect to the Legal Services Society. It is my understanding that the Attorney General ministry does have primary responsibility for that organization, given that the majority of funding for the Legal Services Society does come from the Attorney General ministry.

I'm aware that a couple of years ago -- I believe it was 1994 -- this government, or the previous administration and your predecessor, Mr. Gabelmann, implemented changes not only to the Legal Services Society but to the act which regulates that society, in effect giving the government control over ten out of 15 positions on the board of directors. Five of those, of course, come from community law offices, but those law offices are in turn again essentially controlled by the government through funding, because that's where their funding comes from.

My question is: given the influence that the Attorney General ministry has with respect to the Legal Services Society, can the Attorney General not exercise some influence over the administration of the society -- I just wonder if I could have the Attorney General's attention -- or some persuasion into how family law is administered?

My comrade from the riding of Abbotsford raised the issue with respect to an individual in prison -- a situation where a gentleman in prison was applying for legal aid and received legal aid coverage, apparently on the legal aid tariff. There is supposed to be a case management system in place. They've hired extra staff lawyers, who work out of head office at LSS in Vancouver, to supervise legal aid coverage. My question is: can the Attorney General ministry do something to communicate with the Legal Services Society in Vancouver to find out why it is that in a situation like this, they're allowing a person to essentially bring vexatious litigation into the system and torment what's left of this family?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, as much as I would love to be able to do something instantaneously on issues such as that, the legislative framework that we have for the Legal Services Society prevents me from dealing with those kinds of issues. Time and time again, for the last few months as I've been dealing with these issues, I've been frustrated because of the legislative framework. Accountability is an issue that we need to address in the very near future. The management review, hopefully, would address some of the issues that you raise.

I'm aware that if those who apply for legal aid are not dealt with properly, they can appeal to the Legal Services Society board for review. I'm not aware of any process for people at the other end of that equation to be able to apply to the Legal Services Society for some kind of hearing. But I would encourage anyone who feels victimized by the alleged mismanagement to write to the Legal Services Society so that they hear that they are sitting there trying to manage this on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia.

B. Penner: I have another question. Mention has been made here of an extra $6 million in funding that will be provided to the Legal Services Society to help make up for the deficit. I'm just wondering, for the sake of clarification: will that deficit just be carried forward, or are you forgiving it for this given year? Will the Legal Services Society be expected to repay that $6 million next year, or is it forgiven?

[ Page 58 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, hon. member, that there is a carryover of deficit of up to $22 million past April 1, 1996, and the $6.2 million essentially would be wiped out. This was a carryover of the deficit from 1994-95; I understand some promise had been made to them that that would be paid.

B. Penner: So after this year, then, the Legal Services Society does not owe the provincial government any more money? Are they forgiven? Is the balance wiped clean?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the deficit at this point would stand at about $16 million. As part of the management review, and subsequent to that, they have been asked to come back to us with a plan to reduce this deficit over time -- three, four, five years -- so that we can see at the end of the day that there would be no deficit.

B. Penner: I have a question about the review or the study that the hon. minister has mentioned. Who was conducting this review, and to whom will the review panel report? Will it report directly to the Legal Services Society or to the Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This would be a jointly sponsored management review. Once the terms of reference have been crafted, the matter would be put out to tender. Then the review would, of course, be reported back to us as well as the Legal Services Society at the same time.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the Attorney General can advise the committee what portion of the special warrant has been devoted to the operations of the Nemetz inquiry. What budgeted expenditure in the three-month special warrant has gone to sustaining the operations of that inquiry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the inquiries are under the Inquiry Act. That is part of a statutory expense and is not part of our vote.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can then advise us of the relationship between the ongoing investigation by the special prosecutor and the criminal investigation by the RCMP, as it relates to the time period of the inquiry. Is he aware of the inquiry being hobbled in any way by the police investigation that is being carried out under the mandate of his ministry? Is he satisfied, in terms of the progress of the Nemetz inquiry, that it proceeds without any encumbrance from the criminal investigation that is continuing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe you have two former justices of the Court of Appeal, one heading the special prosecution function and the other one, the former chief justice, heading the inquiry. The Attorney General does not and cannot interfere in either of their functions. I understand that they have dealt with the issues as to what can be dealt with by way of an inquiry before the prosecution investigation is completed. Those are issues that I stay away from, and that is because the Attorney General does not and cannot and must not interfere, either directly or indirectly, in either that special prosecutor's function or in the function of the inquiry. Those are questions that they have to satisfy themselves on before they proceed with their individual functions.

W. Hurd: Just one other question, then, for my own edification. Can the Attorney General advise the committee exactly how the expenses of the Nemetz inquiry are accounted for? Which ministry of government are we dealing with in terms of paying the bills for that inquiry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sorry, hon. member, I stand corrected. I understand that it is part of our vote. To date, approximately $48,000 has been expended.

[8:45]

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could advise the committee as to whether he gets some sort of accounting of how the money is being spent. Is it a bill that's submitted to the ministry on an ongoing basis? Perhaps he could just take a minute to explain the accounting procedure the ministry uses to pay the ongoing expenses of the inquiry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The bills from such undertakings come to the ministry and are regularly looked at and paid, unless there is something extraordinary about them that indicates something should be questioned. They're just simply paid in the normal course.

W. Hurd: The Attorney General will be aware that the Premier has committed to repaying the money to the charities in Nanaimo, with interest, if indeed it can be determined that money was illegally received by the New Democratic Party. I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us whether or not that is within the mandate of the commission of inquiry's order, or whether that is another one of the Premier's campaign promises.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The terms of reference of the inquiry are public.

W. Hurd: So the Attorney General is then telling us, in fact, that the commission could order restitution as part of its mandate.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have with me the terms of reference for the inquiry. The hon. member is just as capable of looking at them as I am, and for the hon. member to draw any such inference, as he has done, would be improper.

W. Hurd: I must confess, though, that I'm not getting billed $48,000 over three months for the operations of the inquiry; the ministry is. So I would assume that the Attorney General would welcome the opportunity to advise the House and the people of the province that the commitment to repay the money wasn't just a campaign promise but in fact could be part of the terms of reference of the Nemetz inquiry.

But before we get into estimates, hon. Chair, we'll make it a point to analyze the terms of reference and determine whether or not the commitment to repay the money is indeed a campaign promise instead of a real promise or real commitment on the part of the inquiry.

I guess I can also ask whether or not the Nemetz inquiry has a mandate or timetable for completion. Are we to assume, then, that it could continue indefinitely until such time as a set of recommendations are presented to the ministry?

I wonder if the Attorney General could just describe for the committee what happens when the Nemetz inquiry books out and submits its report to the Attorney General ministry, which is paying the bills. Perhaps you could just take a moment to describe to the committee what the procedure is once that occurs.

[ Page 59 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, hon. member, that once the inquiry is complete, I receive the report, and I would attempt to make it public at the earliest possible. By law, under the Inquiry Act, I have to make it public within 14 days of the House sitting, but I'm sure that it would be a document which would be required to be made public much earlier.

W. Hurd: Can the Attorney General then tell us, to the best of his knowledge, whether or not being a table officer for the New Democratic Party would in any way compromise anyone on the executive council if they receive or analyze the report from the Nemetz inquiry before it's made public? Would that be a potential problem in terms of the gap between the time the report is received by the government and released to the public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If there are any matters that might lend themselves to a further criminal investigation or prosecution, the criminal justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General, under the auspices of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, whose function is independent -- as enshrined in the Crown Counsel Act -- would look at those issues and deal with them without any interference from the Attorney General.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's an interesting line of questions. I was surprised to hear the Attorney General say that that report could lie in his hands for as much as 14 days, given the former Minister of Finance who received a report investigating this issue and the process that she went through to "prepare for the release of the report" by briefing two key political people -- in fact, the only people who were briefed at that point were the two key political people in the Premier's Office -- and the subsequent discomfort that caused the minister. Does the Attorney General not feel that it would be in the best interests not only of the public but, more importantly, of the career of the Attorney General to have that report brought directly to the Legislature and made public without going through the Attorney General's ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The spirit of the question is absolutely important. Yes, absolutely, it might be more appropriate for it to come to the Legislature directly. But if there are any issues that might require potential investigation or looking into by the criminal justice branch, I think they should be able to look at that in an independent fashion under the Crown Counsel Act -- and they have that function totally removed from the Attorney General.

As you know, the Attorney General cannot directly or indirectly interfere in the function of the criminal justice branch with respect to any prosecutions except with a written direction, which direction then has to be gazetted. The function of the criminal justice branch, particularly the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, is enshrined in the legislation and is the equivalent of a director of public prosecutions, except that we don't use that title.

G. Farrell-Collins: One would have thought that the previous Minister of Finance couldn't have interfered in any way with the process, either. I know the structure in the Ministry of Finance is a little different from what it is in the Attorney General's. It is a very different ministerial portfolio and one of great importance, and there is that separation there.

But when the Parks report was made available, it spent a fair bit of time in the hands of the Minister of Finance and two key political aides, and it was subsequently made available, I believe, to the Gang of Six, as it's referred to, within cabinet at the time. In advance of the delivery of that report to the Minister of Finance, the question was raised in the House as to whether or not the Minister of Finance would give a commitment that that report, when it became available, would be made available to the Legislature first and foremost, and not go through the minister's office. She declined to give that guarantee.

I guess what I'm asking the Attorney General is: will he make a commitment to this Legislature -- perhaps, as I said, in the public interest but also in his own interest -- that that report will go to the Legislature or the criminal justice branch and will not find its way through the Attorney General's office? Or is it the intent for that report to be delivered to yourself as the Attorney General?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am certain that when you have a man of the stature of Justice Nemetz dealing with these issues, if he was aware of any potentially criminal investigation or prosecution matters within his findings, he would direct those appropriate areas to the criminal justice branch without sending it elsewhere. He may send it to me, but the criminal justice branch would, of course, look at all those issues very, very quickly. Those issues are within their purview.

I. Waddell: On a point of order, I was wondering if the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain would help us and direct us to which item of the estimates he's putting these questions under -- which specific part of the estimates. As he knows, he has to put questions on the estimates, not on just general broad policy, as I understand it.

The Chair: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Fraserview, and now to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the point of order, I'm much pleased to have the advice and wisdom of the member for Port Moody-Ottawa for the last ten years or so. This is a different Legislature. I don't know the way the rules worked in Ottawa, but in this Legislature we have a fairly wide-ranging debate in estimates. Second, I believe....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, you can stand up again in a minute.

I believe also that under this estimate there was a figure of some $46,000 or $48,000 that was being allotted to the Nemetz inquiry investigation to date. I guess it's that dollar figure that I'm questioning and the value the public in British Columbia will get for the $46,000 or $48,000 they've invested in trying to get to the bottom of the most sordid political scam and scandal in the history of British Columbia and Canada.

The Chair: Further discussion on the Attorney General's warrants.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I can ask the Attorney General a question. It wasn't the wisdom or the talent or the integrity of Justice Nemetz that I was questioning. The minister made some comment about that; I certainly am not questioning that at all.

[ Page 60 ]

I do have a concern. We had another gentleman of equally fine stature and repute and credibility who did the first report: Mr. Parks. Through no fault or lack of character of Mr. Parks, the report went to the then Minister of Finance, and that's where the issue broke down and the problem developed. Therefore what I'm asking the Attorney General is: will he give a personal assurance to this House that if the Nemetz report lands on his desk, before he opens it -- before he opens it -- and briefs key political advisers in his office or in the Premier's Office or in the Gang of Six office, before he briefs the party officials that are attending the cabinet meetings, before he briefs the New Democratic Party, will he please brief the public and make sure that the public of British Columbia are the first people to see the contents of that report? Not yourself, not the people in the ministry, not the political advisers, not the spin doctors and not the damage control people, but the people of British Columbia will be the first to see the content.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can give the hon. member the undertaking that the first thing I would do with the report, if it came and landed at my table, would be to take it over to the criminal justice branch and get them to look at it to make sure there are no issues that might be potentially damaged in terms of future prosecutions or investigations by the release of the report or a portion of the report. If they satisfied me that that's not the case, the next thing would be that the report would be made public.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to make clear that I have the assurance of the Attorney General that the only people who may see the contents of that report before the three-point-whatever million British Columbians would be individuals within the criminal justice branch.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Farrell-Collins: Does that include the Attorney General himself, or would the Attorney General himself be looking through the report before it was made public to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member keeps coming back to me. I have assured you that if the report lands on my desk, I would ask Ernie Quantz, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, to come into my office right away, look at the report, deal with any issues that may need to be dealt with and prepare it for making it public.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the Attorney General tell me what that means, preparing to make it public? It seems to me that the preparation is easy. You pick it up and you walk out and you make it public. What preparations, aside from taking it to the criminal justice branch for possible further criminal investigations, would be required to prepare to make it public?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's essentially what I'm saying.

G. Farrell-Collins: To the Attorney General: can he tell me whether or not the flow of moneys from constituency office allowances through constituency offices into repayment of mortgages, money that may or may not end up in the hands of political parties, is also something that is being investigated or is within the terms of reference of the Nemetz inquiry?

[9:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, I have not looked at the terms of reference of the inquiry for some time, and I can't give you my interpretation of them to tell you whether or not what you say is included or excluded.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can the Attorney General commit to this House that if the concern that's been raised by the opposition and others about the flow of constituency funds through various Commonwealth societies into the hands of political parties, the New Democratic political party in particular... if that potential is not contained within the Nemetz inquiry, he will ensure that there is another forum whereby that allegation could be investigated?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think we should await the outcome of the special prosecution as well of the Nemetz inquiry, and at that time the hon. member hopefully would be here to raise these issues on that side of the House, and I'd be here to answer the questions on this side of the House.

G. Farrell-Collins: I hope it's at least that soon. If it's not, we'll be on that side of the House and we can finally get to the bottom of this thing.

I guess what I'm seeking is some assurance that we will in fact get to the bottom of this thing sometime. It's been going on for some five years, in the public venue anyway. The issue of the flow through to constituency funds is something that was originally touched on by Mr. Hughes with an interim report; the subsequent report hasn't been arrived at, or hasn't been determined. Mr. Hughes made it clear that they even have the expertise to pursue that further. Subsequent information and financial statements have come to light since that time, and there has been no attempt to address that issue in any form whatsoever. I'm wondering if we can get a commitment from the Attorney General that it is indeed his goal to get to the bottom of this, to set this right, to make sure that the money that's owed is repaid, either to the taxpayers or to the charities from which it was stolen; and that we will get to the bottom of the fiasco in Nanaimo and also the potential problems with constituency money flowing through to political parties.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Premier has said time and time again that there is nothing to hide. He has ordered.... He has very clearly established the inquiry. There are broad terms of reference of the inquiry, and at the end of the day, when the inquiry report comes and the special prosecution is concluded, if there are other issues that the hon. member knows of or has any evidence of, obviously the police are always ready, willing and able to deal with those issues and he should make those issues known to the police. Mr. Hughes looked at these issues, and obviously....

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The conflict-of-interest commissioner looked at these issues, and obviously you have his findings before you. I am unable to make any commitments at this time as to what the outcome of the Nemetz inquiry might lead to. Once we have all of those issues before us, we may be able to better address what you're talking about.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's true that the Premier has clearly said time and again that there's nothing to hide, but the 

[ Page 61 ]

Premier has said a lot of things over the last little while that perhaps haven't come to fruition, so I don't take much comfort in that. Perhaps the minister does, but I certainly don't.

I want to come back briefly to touch on some of the questions that were raised by the member for Surrey-White Rock. The dollar figure of $48,000 that's been expended by the Nemetz inquiry so far is one figure. Does the Attorney General have any sort of reporting on how much the RCMP has spent over the last little while on this investigation? I understand they had 60 or so officers investigating it from the commercial crime section at one point in time -- numerous people involved. I'm wondering if he has any estimate of what the ongoing costs of that investigation are.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't have that information at this time. I'll certainly attempt to get that for the estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I'll be glad. I'll be waiting to get that figure, if we can.

The Premier has made a commitment again, as referred to by the member for Surrey-White Rock. It may well have just been an election promise, but he did promise to repay the stolen charity funds in Nanaimo, plus interest. And we've been led to believe that negotiations continued right up until the election took place, with Mr. Wickstrom and Mr. Carpentier discussing some dollar figures. I'm wondering who is going to foot the bill for the -- I don't know how much it is -- probably hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions of dollars of RCMP investigation that's been paid for, so far, by the taxpayers, and now the $48,000 and counting in the Nemetz inquiry. Who is going to pay for both the RCMP investigation and the Nemetz inquiry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The investigation and the inquiry are obviously the expense of the Ministry of Attorney General, and I've indicated that I'll bring you the items for the estimates.

G. Farrell-Collins: It would be a tragedy if not only the charities in Nanaimo were bilked out of several hundred thousand or several million dollars worth of bingo money but the people of British Columbia were bilked out of several million dollars worth of police investigations, Nemetz inquiries and Parks inquiries. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can give the taxpayers of British Columbia any sort of assurance as to whether or not the New Democratic Party will also be paying for those investigations with interest.

W. Hurd: I just have a couple of further questions to ask. The Attorney General will recall that former Premier Harcourt had requested information as to whether the investigation by the RCMP would touch on any member of the executive council or any Member of the Legislative Assembly, and at that time had received assurances that the investigation at that point did not touch on members of the assembly.

Can the Attorney General assure the committee that as the criminal investigation proceeds, if that situation were to change -- if indeed it did point in the direction of some member of the assembly -- that information would not be provided to the Attorney General and would remain within the context of the ongoing criminal investigation? Just going back to the events earlier this year when the Premier of the day sought assurances that it did not touch on individual members, if that situation were to change, would it remain totally within the purview and context of the ongoing RCMP investigation?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The assurance that was in place at that time is still in place. I am assured that the RCMP would provide any information to the Attorney General if it compromises the ability of any sitting member of the Legislature to perform his or her duties, to the extent that that disclosure to me may not jeopardize their investigation. So as soon as they have any information that they believe might jeopardize the ability of any sitting member of the Legislature, the assurance is in place that the Attorney General would be advised so that appropriate steps can be taken.

W. Hurd: It seems highly irregular that the Attorney General would be receiving information about an ongoing investigation by the criminal justice branch. I would have thought that the Premier seeking assurances early in the investigation is totally different than the situation we face now, where one would assume the commercial crime section investigation is proceeding and where it may touch on members of the House or the executive council. Has the Attorney General, who is supposed to be separated by statute from the criminal justice branch, solicited a legal opinion as to whether he is in any way in a role of conflict in receiving that kind of information about any of his colleagues? Is he comfortable that he is legally on sound ground in receiving information about an ongoing criminal investigation that could touch on some of his colleagues?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The police conduct their investigations, and at the end of the day the Attorney General, being the chief law enforcement officer of the province, is advised about any investigation that he may need to know about, if the police can provide that information. The Attorney General doesn't go around asking police officers about the state of investigations. Once they are complete and concluded, if they believe, and the criminal justice branch believes, that the Attorney General of the day ought to be advised of a particular investigation, they would do so.

That is the right of the Attorney General, and it is in fact the duty of the Attorney General to receive that information in total confidence. The Attorney General has a dual role: one is the criminal justice role, the justice role, which is entirely independent of cabinet; and the other is policy issues and those kinds of issues, where the Attorney General is part of cabinet on a more regular basis. But the criminal justice role of the Attorney General is completely independent of cabinet.

W. Hurd: The Attorney General has indicated to the committee that he would be advised if there was information from the investigation that touched on individual members of the assembly and that, in his words, would compromise their ability as legislators. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether that interpretation of what constitutes a compromise would lie within the RCMP's definition. Or would we be dealing with a situation where the RCMP would inform the Attorney General that parts of the investigation might be leading in the direction of a member of the assembly and would compromise their ability to do their work? Would that in itself constitute the definition of a compromise, or would the Attorney General himself be asked to make a determination about whether an individual member was in conflict or compromised in terms of their ability to do their job? Where would the definition lie?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Remember, at the end of the day it's not the Attorney General who decides whether a particular member's ability to carry on his or her duties is jeopardized or compromised. I think that's a larger issue. I receive the crimi-

[ Page 62 ]

nal justice information in the strictest of confidence. If I became aware that the ability of a certain member of the assembly is compromised, I would of course ask the police to deal with the matter in the way that they see fit. Of course, it is my obligation to advise the Premier to take appropriate action to deal with it if someone's ability to remain in cabinet or to serve as a member is jeopardized.

V. Anderson: I will go to another aspect of the report, and that has to do with multiculturalism and immigration. I would ask particularly, in that there's about $10 million between those two, what portion of that is immigration. Of that $10 million for multiculturalism and immigration, what portion is for the immigration part of the ministry?

Perhaps, while they're looking that up, I could ask the minister: what is the plan of negotiations on immigration at the present time in discussions between federal and provincial governments with common concerns?

[9:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, I understand that the total moneys in multiculturalism and immigration are about $5 million, and of that, $2.5 million is for the settlement grants. That is categorized as immigration money, because it essentially deals with the settlement needs of the newcomers to this province.

V. Anderson: I'm not quite sure of the minister's answer. As I see it, there's a total of $9.8 million between multiculturalism and immigration. What I am asking is: what portion of that almost $10 million is in the immigration section rather than the multicultural section?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that the grants are $5 million, of which $2.5 million is settlement grants. The rest of the money is, of course, salaries and benefits and the like. I can't tell you how much of that is for those who deal with immigration within the Multiculturalism and Immigration section of the ministry. If that information is required, I can certainly get it for you for the estimates.

V. Anderson: Could you explain to us briefly what is happening in the area of immigration and what discussions are currently underway between the federal and provincial governments with regard to cooperative immigration -- planning or programs or both?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are extremely interested in the Quebec model, and we are interested in making sure that the immigrants we attract to British Columbia are the kind of immigrants we need for British Columbia in terms of the skills and talents that they bring.

In terms of the program issues, there is a whole settlement renewal process going on. There are discussions with the bureaucrats and the ministry in Ottawa in terms of Ottawa trying to off-load, in a sense, part of the responsibilities that they have carried so far in terms of providing settlement funding for agencies and organizations across the province, to the tune of, I believe, about $25 million.

Currently there are discussions underway to ensure that there is no downloading, and that if there is to be delivery of those services presently provided by the federal government through funding different agencies.... If we as a province are to be responsible for that, we want to make sure at the end of the day that the funding is guaranteed to us at least for a certain period, if not forever, so that we can continue to provide those services.

V. Anderson: Following that up: is it the wish of the provincial government ministry at this point to recommend and to encourage Ottawa to transfer those immigration settlement responsibilities to the province? Or are you saying that these are being transferred against the wishes of the province? What is the position in encouraging or discouraging...? Perhaps answer that one first.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If and when the money is provided to us, of course we will have increased control over how that is utilized in the province -- and maybe for the good of all of us, in the end. But we want to make sure that with the increased responsibility for delivering those services, we get the increased funding that we require -- that they don't leave us without funding.

They attempted at one point to talk to the agencies directly, to have some consultation with the agencies and determine whether or not the most appropriate thing for Ottawa was to provide that money to some agency or agencies in British Columbia. It was felt by those agencies and community groups that the best way to deal with that was to have the money come to the province and to have the province deal with delivering those basic services through those organizations.

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member, I believe we have an introduction.

G. Robertson: I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: I'm extremely pleased this afternoon to be able to introduce my partner, Karen Schwalm, my daughter Kimberley Robertson and my son Nolan, who I haven't seen for six months.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister has.... He's introduced that he would like to adopt the Quebec model in order that we could put -- I'm not sure what he said; I missed the exact wording -- some requirements or restrictions on the persons or the kind of the people we would like to come into the province -- the implication being "like Quebec does." Could the minister explain or say whether I'm misquoting him as to what the Quebec model is and why we hear him saying that we should adopt that kind of model in British Columbia?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Quebec has a lot more control over the whole process of immigrants coming into the province; therefore they're able to target their needs appropriately -- the skills that they need. This has nothing to do with individuals coming from one part of the world as opposed to any other part of the world; it has to do with the skills that you need for the provincial economy, and the talents that you need. We haven't made up our minds, but that's an option. Much of what Ottawa does and, in the past in particular, has done has depended on their perception of the needs of central Canada. 

[ Page 63 ]

We don't want to be left out of that discussion, and we are looking at all of those options to see if we want increased control over the immigration process for immigrants coming to British Columbia, as does Quebec.

V. Anderson: Might I ask the minister what process the ministry has in place for inquiring from the citizens of British Columbia what kind of immigration policy or immigration programs they would like? What is the way of getting feedback from the province for direction in this regard?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no specific process in place at this time; however, we do have occasional forays into trying to find out what our specific needs are. The former Premier held a forum in the last term of this government with people who were trying to attract investment and immigrants to British Columbia, so that we could assess our needs and the needs of the investment and business community. Those kinds of forums are perhaps one of the ways of dealing with it. But if and when we decide that we need increased control over the process of immigration, we would then need to do a much more thorough job of trying to assess our needs. Right now Ottawa consults us on the basic needs, but Ottawa makes those decisions, and they are generally directed toward the needs of central Canada.

V. Anderson: I want to follow this more in the estimates, but it seems to me that there's a great deal of concern in multiculturalism that reflects itself in social services policies, that reflects itself in educational policies, that reflects itself in health policies -- in all of the other policies of the government that have to do with immigration and multiculturalism, but primarily in the results and the things that come out of immigration. So it seems to me that the kind of laissez faire attitude that I'm hearing with respect to immigration is not being responsive to the needs that I'm hearing the community raising.

It seems to me that was partly my question about what planning or focus is in the area of immigration, because it has so many spinoffs, so many complications and so many opportunities that I think are being totally neglected at this point. The kind of money that's being put in is an indication of the lack of planning or concern, or foresight or future direction. Immigration has been kind of tacked on to the end of the Ministry of Attorney General, or Education or Environment, and it's been seen as an aspect of multiculturalism, when it stands in its own right. So I'm asking the minister if there are any plans for a focus on a review of the whole immigration involvement and its implications and effect upon our community for the future.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Remember that at the end of the day we have very little say about who comes to British Columbia. That's what we're talking about when we talk about gaining increased control over meeting our needs through immigrants coming to this country with the skills and talents that we need.

We in fact end up meeting the needs of the immigrants that Ottawa decides to process overseas to come into this country, and we end up absorbing the ESL needs and all of the other needs. Immigrants make a great deal of contribution to our economy, so we're happy to be able to deal with their settlement and integration needs in British Columbia. But what we want to do at the end of the day is have more say in what kinds of immigrants are coming to British Columbia, what kinds of skills they bring to British Columbia. And we could have that say through Ottawa listening to us more adequately or, at the end of the day, through opting for a Quebec-style arrangement -- not necessarily a Quebec arrangement, but a Quebec-style arrangement, which would give us more control over meeting our needs with the resources that we allow from other countries to come in.

The Chair: Before I recognize the next speaker, I wonder if I might remind us all that estimates are coming. We'll have lots of time to talk about all of these things, and we're getting a little past the warrants. I just thought I would remind everyone of that, including the ministers.

V. Anderson: What I have heard from many of the business immigrants who have come to this country is the lack of opportunity and resources to help them become a part of the business community. There is a whole range here, and what I'm highlighting is that there is a major weakness in our planning. Simply saying, as we have in the past, that it's Ottawa's problem and not ours, saying that Ottawa is giving directions to us, is passing the buck; and simply saying that we haven't been doing our own homework.... I wanted to highlight that, because I think that's a weakness that we have in our present governmental programs.

R. Thorpe: Mr. Minister, on page 74....

The Chair: Hon. member, we're not really dealing with the estimates right now -- on page 74 or any other page. We're dealing with the warrants, so it's the item that is in Bill 5.

R. Thorpe: It appears that there is an increased provision for gaming, auditing and investigation of approximately 124 percent. Could you give us some explanation as to why that increase?

[9:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, I understand that that's the increased, enlarged capacity of the gaming, audit and investigation function in the Ministry of Attorney General as it was split off from policy, and the Gaming Commission went to another ministry. We wanted to make sure that the enforcement, auditing and investigations with respect to gaming remained in the Attorney General ministry so that they are independent of the other function, which is controlled and governed by the Gaming Commission and is an independent entity. This is simply an increased cost of the ongoing enforcement and, in fact, strengthening of that function in the Attorney General ministry.

R. Thorpe: The revenue projections for '95-96 for the liquor distribution branch, which I understand you're responsible for, fell some $10 million short of their projections. Mr. Minister, you're forecasting additional revenues going forward. Could you please explain how the LDB is going to generate these increased revenues?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The general decline in the sale of spirits has led to that decline in revenue, but the branch is anticipating implementing a lot of efficiency measures to make sure that the projected revenue aims are met.

R. Thorpe: Will the minister confirm to this committee that there will be no markup fees or tax increases with respect to the products sold by the LDB to the citizens of British Columbia?

[ Page 64 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Of course, there is legislation coming to the effect that there will be no tax increases.

J. van Dongen: I just have a couple of questions. Does the funding for the provincial emergency program include both salaries and some compensation for damaged property? What all is included under that program in the spending estimates?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the damages are paid under a particular statute and are not part of the PEP program itself. Those are statutory expenses once the damages are calculated and paid; they are paid under a statute.

J. van Dongen: So I would assume that the Attorney General is referring to the Emergency Program Act as to the statutory pay-outs. If that's the case, then I'm very surprised at the amount of funding established under the provincial emergency program. I wonder if the minister could just give us a rough breakdown as to salaries versus other expenses under that program.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, in the 1995-96 budget it was approximately $2 million, and approximately $125,000 of it was salaries and benefits. The rest was made up of several other items, but the salaries are essentially minimal.

The Chair: Shall we move to the Education warrants under Bill 5? Ready for discussion on Education, Skills and Training?

On schedule 2 -- Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

A. Sanders: I'd like you to put on your education hat as part of your dearth of duties and address a number of questions for me, please, sir. Firstly, in terms of the suspended capital projects, I'd like to ask about the Okanagan Landing Elementary School, which is in my riding. This had the go-ahead as a capital project prior to delivery of the budget. In the case of this particular school, will it move forward with its capital improvements?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, this is the first opportunity I've had to rise in the House since the recent election. Let me start by expressing my gratitude to the people of Esquimalt-Metchosin, who provided me with yet another opportunity to represent them in this Legislature. As always, I will speak on their behalf and endeavour to speak to the values that are important to the working people of Esquimalt-Metchosin. In the work I'll be doing as Minister of Education, I will endeavour to ensure that their aspirations are recognized as we try to provide opportunities for all children and students in British Columbia to achieve their human potential.

With that said, I wish to advise the hon. member -- and welcome her to the Legislature as well -- that the Minister of Finance will be making available to the public his list of which projects are going to be covered by the capital freeze and which are not. I suspect that will be Friday at the earliest, Wednesday at the latest.

A. Sanders: On that list I would also specifically request, please, which capital school projects will be suspended in the districts of Coquitlam and Surrey. I would hope that those will be made available to us.

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for her question. We will be making available a full list of all the projects that are being frozen provincewide, so you'll be able to distil from that list, hon. member, the full list of schools in every district, including the ones you enumerated.

A. Sanders: To change course slightly, I'd like to discuss amalgamation of school districts -- a situation that often, from my perspective, is a case where the actual medicine is worse than the disease itself in some of the districts. In looking at the interim financial measures, what financial help will the government be giving the school districts in the amalgamation process? Is this accounted for in the interim supply?

Interjections.

A. Sanders: I will address you with eye contact, sir.

What financial help will the government be giving school districts in the amalgamation process? Is this accounted for in the interim supply that government has provided us with?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. If your question relates to the quantum of funds that we provided to assist districts in studying the benefits of amalgamation, that would have been done in this fiscal year, and that would be a cost that they would have to bear. However, they will be allowed to save all of the benefits, all the financial savings that would accrue from amalgamation, and that would of course be folded into their budget. So if they've identified savings through amalgamation, that is their money.

A. Sanders: I'm specifically thinking more along the line of whether their legal action, if any, and their inability to accrue savings under the amalgamation process are accounted for in the interim supply.

Hon. M. Sihota: There was a sum of $250,000 made available to the B.C. School Trustees Association in order to assist them in doing the work that they were required to do with regard to amalgamation.

A. Sanders: With respect to severance packages under amalgamation, hon. member, are these included and considered in the interim supply budget as well? And what is the figure value for them?

Hon. M. Sihota: Severance will obviously be an interesting issue to deal with in the course of these amalgamation discussions. But no provision is made in the interim supply matters that are before the House with regard to severance.

A. Sanders: Would that not be a significant factor that should be considered?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, clearly it's a factor. Whether or not it's significant will depend on the outcome of the discussion that would happen around issues as they relate to severance and the placement of the individuals. So it may well not be significant, depending on how the issues are handled.

I know, for example, in my own school district, during the course of the amalgamation discussions a number of the administrators volunteered to leave their positions. In the case of the Victoria school district, the superintendent left and took up employment outside British Columbia. So I don't think it's fair to assume that the totality of the potential severance costs will be costs that would flow to the cost associated with amalgamation.

[ Page 65 ]

A. Sanders: I'm sure that one of us cannot be wrong. I was hoping that there would be an actual figure for the severance package, because I think that figure could be substantial. I would make haste to have that figure if possible.

I wish to ask about the 1996 testing of the provincial examinations and scholarship exams. Did the government approach a United States company to mark these exams? If so, why was that the case?

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll deal with the member's first comments with regard to severance. We're both going to be right; there will be a midpoint here. We'll take into account those costs, as will school boards.

With regard to the testing, that has not occurred, to my knowledge. However, I will take the opportunity to advise the member further during estimates if indeed an inquiry was made with a foreign firm.

[9:45]

A. Sanders: In terms of collective agreements, these were imposed on the school districts. How will school districts pay for these agreements, which in some cases will go back to the year 1993-94, for example? Are there moneys allocated under the interim agreement to account for these measures?

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. member, for the question. The answer is that those moneys will have to be found within the context of provincial general revenues.

A. Sanders: Does that mean that they are not a line item within the Ministry of Health interim supply? I'm sorry, the Ministry of Education.

Hon. M. Sihota: Neither the Ministry of Health nor the Ministry of Education.

A. Sanders: I wish to address, for all of us who sometimes reject optimism for realism, how the hon. member will be addressing issues of strife in relationships between Labour and the BCTF when he wears both hats as the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education.

Hon. M. Sihota: Carefully and with prudence.

A. Sanders: I'm not aware of who Prudence is, but I hope she has some good ideas.

Specifically, I was wondering about a potential scenario -- if that could be explained to me, as I am a fledgling of the House. How exactly would the hon. member be able to perform that particular task with that division of duties?

Hon. M. Sihota: I think it's fair to say that we'll deal with that situation if it arises. However, let's remember here that we have just concluded an agreement with the teachers, so there is stability with regard to that issue, which can often be thorny. We have concluded the bulk of the arrangements with the Canadian Union of Public Employees within the education sector. We have also concluded the agreements with college instructors for a period of two years, I believe. On the foreseeable horizon, one would not anticipate labour strife in the education area.

In addition to that, the fact remains that....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry; I had my train of thought interrupted there by the hon. member who is obviously taking bets on who's going to end up in what portfolio.

In addition to that, we do not see any potential for strife. In addition, if it does arise, remember that there are other alternatives available under labour statutes that would involve other parties, like mediators, being involved in these kinds of issues, as opposed to myself.

A. Sanders: I'd like to ask the hon. member: in terms of a percentage of time, how much time will be spent on duties of education and how much will be spent on duties of labour?

Hon. M. Sihota: I've calculated it out to be about 96.4 on one side and....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that's right. It depends what happens to skiing and golf, for those of you who know me.

It varies. It's not as if I haven't had responsibilities for a number of areas of government activity in the past. Certainly during the course of my time in Environment I was able to demonstrate that I could handle what were once three different ministries, and I'm sure that will be the case again.

A. Sanders: I have one additional question before my colleagues take over. My understanding is that for the examinations, teachers were being paid $100 per diem as markers without being issued T4 slips. This was called an honorarium, I imagine, and not claimed until Revenue Canada discovered this, and letters were written to individual teachers within my constituency to pay back money they owe in terms of taxation. Would this be considered by our government to be under the table, and if so, how could this possibly have occurred?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is correct. There was a determination made by Revenue Canada that T4s ought to be issued for this work done by teachers. In light of that ruling, T4 slips have now been issued -- retroactively, I believe. I suspect that was as a result of a ruling by the federal government, whereas in the past it was considered something that would be exempt from the provisions of the Income Tax Act. But obviously someone took it for a ruling to the federal authorities, and they came up with that determination. Hence that's why it was going on in the past, and that's why it is now being dealt with in the fashion that it is.

A. Sanders: I'd like to ask the hon. member how many markers we are discussing and for how many years these per diem rates were unaccounted for.

Hon. M. Sihota: My apologies, hon. member -- I've just been corrected. They are not being issued retroactively -- only prospectively. The activity which occurred in the past along these lines will not be one where T4 slips will be issued and people have to pay income tax on a retroactive basis; it will be prospective.

G. Abbott: I would like to explore with the hon. minister the issue of amalgamation, which was raised previously by my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Vernon. The proposed compulsory amalgamation of school district 21, Armstrong-Spallumcheen, and school district 89, Shuswap, has been the object of much concern among people in my riding.

[ Page 66 ]

The board of school district 21 is strongly opposed to the loss of autonomy and local sensitivity that would result from forced amalgamation. Teachers, parents and even support staff have all expressed their deep concerns.

I would like to briefly quote a couple of expressions of those concerns. One is from the board chair of school district 21, Margriet Ruurs:

"In the best interests of students, staff and our community, we urge you to immediately call off the proposed amalgamation of our school district with school district 89, Shuswap. The amalgamation of school districts is directly against the advice of the provincial steering committee. Deputy Minister of Education Garry Wouters stated that 'you were told we would be facing as much as a $30 million cut, but then the government juggled its priorities, and now we may see as much as a $60 million lift.' He also stated that amalgamation will only achieve a one-time savings of $6 million.

"We do not wish to lose our school district in what has come across as a juggling process without much thought to details and consequences. Already, our district faces expenditures with regard to amalgamation that are not covered in our current budget and will affect our students.

"We are wholeheartedly in favour of restructuring to make school districts around the province more effective and efficient. We are not, however, willing to lose our priorities and local input while no significant savings are achieved.

"We urge you to reconsider this vital issue immediately. We have asked for an appeal process and look forward to your response.

"Sincerely,
Margriet Ruurs"

"In light of the fact that the school district 21, Armstrong-Spallumcheen, had filed an appeal to amalgamation, CUPE local 523, sublocal Armstrong, would like to add their voice to this appeal.

"Because of the appeal, the membership surveyed their membership and asked the following questions:
"1. Would you like to stay as our own district 21?
"2. Amalgamate with Vernon school district 22?
"3. Amalgamate with Shuswap school district 89?

"The membership voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying as their own district (43 out of 54 votes). Second choice was amalgamating with Vernon school district 22, and third was amalgamating with Shuswap school district 89.

"I strongly suggest you take this into consideration in the impending decision."

Given those comments, hon. minister, and given the uncertainty and concern resulting from the proposed amalgamation of school districts, would the hon. minister please advisewhether the government proposes to continue with the forced amalgamation of school district 21, Armstrong-Spallumcheen, and school district 89, Shuswap?

Hon. M. Sihota: I recollect that the Liberal Party stood up in this Legislature and asked this government to proceed with the amalgamation of school districts. They also asked us to amalgamate the ridings in the province and reduce them from 75 to 60. The party that the hon. member campaigned for campaigned in favour of amalgamation.

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, the party that I was very proud to run for did not advocate the forced amalgamation of school districts. They advocated the amalgamation of school districts where it made sense, and we would encourage them to do so if it made good sense. I'd like the minister to answer my question: is his ministry going to continue the forced amalgamation of school districts 21 and 89? I'd like the answer to the question.

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate that the hon. member is looking for an opportunity to mail this exchange out to members of his constituency. So when he does that, he should remind them that his political party took the view in this House that there should be amalgamation of school districts.

G. Abbott: I still haven't received an answer to my question. Does the minister intend to continue the forced amalgamation of those school districts? The people in my riding would like to know the answer, and I would sincerely like the minister to answer the question.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me repeat: the Liberals stood in this House and asked for amalgamation. The hon. member would now try to suggest that it is forced amalgamation on the part of our political party. It occurred after a four-month consultation period. His party supported amalgamation of school boards.

The Chair: Shall we move to Employment and Investment?

I recognize the hon. member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: Am I correct in surmising, then, Mr. Minister, that you do propose to continue with the forced amalgamation?

Hon. M. Sihota: I answered the question.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's true that the minister has had a variety of portfolios, and I would suggest that the reason he's been moved from portfolios from time to time is exactly the attitude we're seeing here this evening. The people of the riding of Shuswap have asked the person they've recently elected to ask the minister a question: does he intend to go ahead with the amalgamation of the districts that have been prescribed?

It's a simple question, and people of the community would like to know whether or not the minister intends to continue with the forced amalgamation in that area. I think it's only decent of the minister to show respect to the people of that riding and to show respect to the person they elected and asked to come to this Legislature to represent them, in the same way the minister said he was so proud to represent the people from Esquimalt-Metchosin. I think it is incumbent upon the minister to answer those people yes or no.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, this government embarked upon a process of amalgamation. We have gone through that process, and the results are known to all members. Not once in the course of discourse around that issue in this House did I ever hear the Liberals say that in the Shuswap area amalgamation should not proceed.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada