[ Page 1787 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

C. Hansen: It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce a very distinguished British Columbian: Sophia Leung. Last year she was the recipient of the Order of Canada for her many years of community service. She's accompanied today by her son Ken Leung and her guests from Amarillo, Texas: Mrs. Alla Wells and Mrs. Mary Clyde. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Doyle: I am very pleased today to have in the gallery friends and constituents from my hometown of Golden in the riding of Columbia River-Revelstoke. In the gallery are Len and Cheryl Denis and their daughter Alyssa, who is helping to boost the economy in Victoria. I'd like you to make them all welcome.

R. Thorpe: I would ask the House to please join with me in welcoming my great-niece Saranaa Hossein, from New York, who is visiting. She is accompanied today by some friends from Victoria: Lori Pollock, Brittany Pollock, Amy Pollock and Jessica Appleton. Please make them feel welcome.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, this bill, if adopted, would amend B.C.'s Constitution Act to formalize a process for free votes in this Legislative Assembly. Only bills concerning fundamental policy or money would be treated as confidence or non-confidence votes in the government of the day. All other issues would be free votes, and thus enable a Member of the Legislative Assembly to cast a vote of individual consequence, demonstrating due regard for the views of that member's constituents and for the public good. For far too long this House and members of this House, particularly on the government side, have been bound to toe the party line, with the only avenue of dissent being to leave the chamber prior to a recorded vote -- something we've seen on this side of the House from time to time as well.

No longer should constituents' views and concerns be secondary to the political philosophies of their MLAs' party caucus. MLAs deserve to be part of a political system which encourages voting free from intimidation or reprisal from the caucus or the party Whip. We have only to look at our roots in the British Parliament, where free votes have long been accepted and are an important part of politics and of representing one's constituents. British Columbians, as well, deserve to have their MLAs' vote based on the qualities that got them elected: dedication to constituents, personal integrity and honourable goals. Moreover, British Columbians deserve continuing individual accountability from those they elect to public office while the MLAs are in the constituency and in the Legislature.

Bill M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

My question to the Minister of Social Services is: when was he made aware of that confidential document, and when was he expecting to tell the House that information?

Hon. D. Streifel: We've gone over the case of Elijah Thomas in the House many times, and I've given members of the opposition the opportunity to come forward and discuss in privacy some of the issues around the deaths of some of these children, Elijah Thomas being one of them. There has never been any evidence given to.... The ministry did not have any knowledge of this child being an NAS child at that time. The report on Elijah Thomas has come forward. This case will be referred to the Child and Family Review Board, and it is my hope that this is one of the areas they will look at and come forward with better information-sharing, as there had not been the full meeting on this case that had been reported earlier by the opposition. I would look forward to the members of the opposition working with us as we all go forward and work on behalf of these children.

G. Campbell: The minister is guaranteed of our assistance in going forward and working on behalf of all of the children of British Columbia and assuring that they are put at the top of the priority list of his ministry, whether they are known to the ministry or in the ministry's care.

However, I want to go back to my question. Clearly British Columbians, the opposition and members of the media were told that Elijah Thomas was born with a drug addiction. The Ministry of Health's own briefing document states that that was not the case. It was not the case, yet that was what we were told was the case. My question to the Minister of Social Services is: when was the minister made aware of the fact that that was not the case, and why did he not let the opposition and other British Columbians know that that was not the case and, in fact, that more information needed to be gathered with regard to Elijah Thomas?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, the Leader of the Opposition is continually wrong on the position he takes and the information he brings forward on all of these cases. This information on this child with NAS was brought forward after the documents were subpoenaed from the ministry, and it was acted on on that basis. That's when we first became aware of the knowledge of that. I would again ask the members opposite to continue to work with us on these cases and not get them out with an eye to....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, hon. members, this information was subpoenaed by the coroner. That's when it became evident that there was an addiction problem with this child.

[ Page 1788 ]

G. Campbell: The problem that this minister has shown, once again, is that he says something one week and he forgets about his responsibilities the next week. This report was dated August 2, 1996 -- subsequent to when the minister told us, as he has reiterated two times today in his response, that this child had a drug addiction. The Health ministry's own report said that the child did not have a drug addiction. If the child had a drug addiction or if they had been concerned about it, he would have been in Sunny Hill Hospital.

My question to this minister is: when will he pay attention to the children of this province? When will he do his homework so that all of us can make sure that children are at the top of our priority list, including knowing what's happening in the Health ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: That's exactly one of the cases that has been referred to the Child and Family Review Board with the hopes that they will look at all of the issues around this case. That's the area they've been constituted to look into. That's what we've asked them to do in this case, and that's what they will do in this case.

[2:15]

M. Coell: The Ministry of Social Services made some serious allegations about how baby Elijah died. The Ministry of Health now tells us that there was no sign of drug addiction in this child. My question is to the Minister of Social Services is: were you not informed by your staff, or were you unprepared when you released the report to the public accusing the mother of being responsible for baby Elijah's death?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's absolutely outrageous that the member opposite would make that accusation, that contention. We have not done such a thing. The case will be with the Child and Family Review Board as soon as the terms of reference are worked out. We're working on that now. The terms of reference will be in place, and the board will be looking at this case.

M. Coell: The minister has said that he wishes to get to the bottom of this case, and we join him in that as well. Can he tell us today when it will be referred to the Child and Family Review Board -- the date? When will it be done?

Hon. D. Streifel: I refer the member to my comments in answer to his first question: that it's absolutely outrageous that they continue to drag these families through this in this public manner. It's absolutely outrageous. When the terms of reference are established -- we're working on that now -- the case will be referred to the Child and Family Review Board.

Hon. D. Streifel: I reject the contention of the opposition that it's been hanging around gathering dust. This report has been compiled; it's been off the director's desk to the deputy; it's been through to the lawyers. Just today I have written a letter to Bernd Walter, because there were some serious issues around the rights of children after I reviewed this report. I have asked that the Child and Family Review Board review this report with a view to giving me advice on the area surrounding the rights of children as described in the act.

B. McKinnon: Will the minister make a commitment in this House today that he will make that report public before the end of this session? This is not a report British Columbians want sitting on a shelf.

Hon. D. Streifel: I've committed already in this House, hon. Speaker, to make the report public -- anything I can legally do to make that report public -- and I will.

Hon. J. MacPhail: As of 3:30 today, there will be a joint news release issued by the city of Kelowna and the medical health officer announcing a general boil advisory for the Kelowna area. I welcome the opportunity to let the members know what that means here. It means that all water has to be boiled before drinking it or cooking with it. That will be issued jointly by both the city and the medical health officer.

My question for the Attorney General is this: will the Attorney General agree that Mr. Burrill is unfit to hold the position of human rights officer, and if so, what action does he intend to take to ensure that the public is protected from Mr. Burrill?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Human Rights Council is a creation of the statute and is an independent quasi-judicial body. It administers itself and governs its own affairs. I am certain that the member is concerned about this issue; we've heard the concern. So will the Human Rights Council, I'm sure, and they will deal with the issue as they see fit.

G. Plant: Of course, independent though the Human Rights Council may be, it is accountable to the members of 

[ Page 1789 ]

this House through the minister responsible for it, who is the Attorney General. What this episode highlights is the good reason for the lack of public confidence in the human rights process. Mr. Burrill is a human rights officer with an obvious bias: he doesn't like business people. I say that this kind of prejudice is completely unacceptable. Once again, will the Attorney General ensure that immediate action is taken to remove Mr. Burrill from his position?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's important for us as legislators to make sure that we raise issues in a way that doesn't threaten the liberties of people who might work for the government directly or indirectly -- or anyone in British Columbia. I would caution members in raising these issues that we must raise them in a way that ensures the independence of the bodies with which they work, if those bodies are supposed to be independent. However, I will undertake to pass on the remarks made and the concern expressed by the hon. member to the Human Rights Council.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, that's not accurate. There is a centralized wait-list system for heart surgery. There are other factors that come into play, and one of the hon. members from the South Peace area noted one of those in terms of travel time, etc., for various patients. But there is a centralized wait-list. It's true, and thank you for recognizing the fact, that we have put $7 million more into heart surgery wait-lists. That's actually part of an overall $25 million investment in eliminating wait-lists, which was announced in April as well.

S. Hawkins: Cardiac specialists at Vancouver General Hospital have informed doctors in my constituency that their priority is to provide service to patients in Vancouver alone. This is outrageous. Our health care system is supposed to provide equal access to all patients, not preferential access by postal code. How can the minister explain her ministry's failure to monitor this waiting list for life-saving heart surgery, which has resulted in rationing for patients in the interior?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's very important that the government makes sure that health care professionals do their jobs properly, but we are not accountable for the words that comes out of the mouth of each and every doctor in this province. I would tell you that this government has put more money into eliminating wait-lists than has ever been contemplated by any previous government. That is absolutely fair; we are a growing province. People are moving here every day, and we are still funding heart surgery in spite of the off-loading by the federal government. Your party didn't think that was good enough in terms of the off-loading.

Secondly, I would just say that in the areas of the province where there is massive population growth, we are putting in extra resources, including an announcement of $1.5 million into the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital that makes the same issues of population growth the member for Okanagan West makes as well.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

B. Penner: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Penner: I was just settling into my chair and getting comfortable for another round of question period when I looked up and saw a former colleague of mine sitting in the gallery. I'd like to introduce to the gallery Eamon Gaunt. I met him when we both worked here as legislative interns in 1989. Following that, we both had the opportunity to attend law school at the University of Victoria. Upon Mr. Gaunt's graduation in 1992, he began research into native land claims and continues today in that employment. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

[2:30]

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

M. de Jong: When we left off this gripping saga on Friday, I think we were dealing with the issue of indemnification. Let me put the question that we danced around and grappled with on Friday into simpler terms. If I have an action as an individual against the Nisga'a and obtain judgment against the Nisga'a government, can I execute on that judgment by seizing the assets of the Nisga'a government?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

M. de Jong: Presumably, therefore the same principle applies with respect to both the provincial and the federal government?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

M. de Jong: Can the minister advise what the logic was or provide some reasoning behind the decision to limit the indemnification provisions to the provincial and federal government, thereby excluding third parties?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm not sure on what basis the hon. member is making the assumption that there is such a limit. I don't know if he can clarify that, because there is no such limit.

[ Page 1790 ]

M. de Jong: I'll reference the relevant sections. I'm on page 7 of the agreement. I'm looking at paragraphs 18 to 20, where 18 and 19 speak of the Nisga'a government indemnifying Canada and British Columbia for liability. They specifically mention those two entities.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I can see how, based on that clause alone, you could form that assumption, but I would refer the hon. member to page 66 of the agreement-in-principle under "Legal Status and Capacity of the Nisga'a Nation," section 4(d), which states that they can "sue and be sued."

M. de Jong: It strikes me that this section provides the legal status, as the minister points out, to have standing both to sue and be sued, whereas paragraphs 18 to 20 on page 7 create a substantive cause of action. So I'm not sure you can -- as the minister has tried to do -- suggest that by virtue of the inclusion of paragraph 4 on page 66, that same cause of action exists.

Hon. J. Cashore: The reason for the wording in sections 18, 19 and 20 is that it is a contract between B.C., Canada and the Nisga'a, so it describes that tripartite relationship.

M. de Jong: I think, though, the minister will agree that as an incident of enacting and enforcing this agreement, or as the result of the sort of action contemplated by paragraphs 18 through 20 by an individual Nisga'a person, there could be damages resulting to a third party. Last day, we canvassed some of the principles behind the inclusion of the section. Just as there could be costs associated to the Crown and the right of Canada or British Columbia as a result of an action by an individual Nisga'a or allegedly Nisga'a person, there could be costs accruing to a third party. So it's significant, in my view, that in those circumstances the Crown would have the right to seek indemnification, and the third party would not.

Hon. J. Cashore: We're getting into an area of very complex legal detail here. I suggest that we arrange for the people from the Nisga'a team to meet with the hon. member, where we can have a very far-reaching discussion and cross-reference the various sections in the agreement-in-principle. That would be a good way to approach this issue.

M. de Jong: Yes. With respect to the particular wording, I don't quarrel with the minister's logic. Maybe I can ask the question this way: is it the minister's view that where the kind of action occurs that is contemplated by sections 18 through 20, third parties should have the same rights as the governments of Canada and British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: The way I'd like to respond to that is that the agreement-in-principle does not deny those third-party rights. Those rights exist.

M. de Jong: Well, then, we're just about there. My question to the minister is essentially the one I just asked. We're going to quarrel about the text in the forum that the minister has suggested. Is it his view, though, that third parties in the circumstances contemplated by these three clauses should have the same rights as the governments of Canada and British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: The better way of phrasing that is that the third party should have the same rights that third parties would have in any other kinds of relationships or transactions -- that their rights should not be displaced by this.

M. de Jong: That answer would be satisfactory but for the fact that we are creating, by virtue of these clauses, a cause or potential cause of action that is available to government. The question is: should that same cause of action be available to third parties? We're talking about something unique here that is created in this case not statutorily but by virtue of a treaty.

Hon. J. Cashore: It's my position that they do have those rights now, where the agreement-in-principle says that they can sue or be sued. I believe that those third-party rights are there the way they would be in any other kind of transaction.

M. de Jong: If that is true, if these are natural incidences of rights that already exist, then surely the Crown has those rights, and why are these three paragraphs there? The minister's answer begs asking that question. If everyone's got these rights, why are they specifically enumerated in the case of the two levels of government?

Hon. J. Cashore: It would work the same way as it would with any other kind of a contract. That particular clause is a description of the relationship between the three negotiating parties.

M. de Jong: And necessarily, then, bestows upon them rights not necessarily available to non-parties. So my question to the minister is: in this particular case, does he believe rights that have been bestowed upon the parties themselves should be extended to non-parties -- third parties, in this case?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that we're destined to keep asking the same questions and giving the same answers. What I'm saying is that the third-party rights are the rights that would exist in any other kind of a contractual situation or relationship. So the third parties would have the rights in this regard that they would have in any other set of circumstances. The contractual relationship between the three negotiating parties is described in specific terms in those three clauses.

M. de Jong: When I hear the minister respond in that way, what I hear him saying is that there are rights pertaining to these indemnification provisions that exist as between the parties. That is certainly an option that's available and, in many cases, is a logical option. But that's not the same as when the minister says: "And these rights also exist for all others by virtue of other sections of the agreement." That's not the case. In fact, the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that clause 4(d) on page 66 does anything approaching what the minister suggests insofar as providing that indemnification protection to third parties is concerned.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, I think that we're asking the same questions and giving the same answers. It is my very strong belief that this does not undermine third-party rights. I think this is one of the issues, again, that we are looking at in the context of discussions that will come out of the all-party committee and the ongoing process and, indeed, the discussions that I have offered between the hon. members. Two of the members sitting on the front bench are lawyers who are very knowledgable in this area. We want to improve where there needs to be improvement, and we will enter into those discussions with you in a very open and genuine way. I do make that commitment. But I don't think that we're going to be getting any more difference to the kinds of statements that are being made in these estimates right at this time. This is not, as I have said many times, the final draft. All these discussions 

[ Page 1791 ]

taking place in these estimates and in the committee and, indeed, discussions that I'm going to arrange between the hon. members and our negotiators will help to inform how that unfolds. But I do believe that it behooves us to clarify some of these points in that kind of forum.

[2:45]

M. de Jong: I'll take one last kick at the can. I hope the minister will appreciate that I'm not trying to pin him down here on some particular wording or phraseology; I am, I think, asking for a statement of principle from the government, and nothing more than that.

The minister talks about it not being his intention to deny rights to third parties, but I think if you approach this from the perspective that the rights contemplated here are not rights that third parties would ordinarily enjoy.... They wouldn't ordinarily have those rights; these clauses contemplate what will happen, the indemnification process, if someone comes along after the fact and says, essentially: "I'm a Nisga'a person. You haven't counted me, and I'm entitled to some compensation."

If that happens, costs can accrue to the federal and provincial governments, and these clauses say that the Nisga'a government will reimburse those costs. But costs can also accrue to third parties, and the decision that seems to have been made is that those third parties will be on their own with respect to those costs. So I'm not accusing the minister of stripping away third-party rights. I'm suggesting to the minister that in principle, the way we're proceeding, rights that have been created for two levels of government are being denied to those third parties.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think we're getting into a very hypothetical area here. Where certain circumstances exist, some of those third-party costs will be covered under the compensation arrangements by the Crown. Again, I would say that third parties would have rights that third parties would have in any other set of relationships.

M. de Jong: Let me just say, then, that my colleagues and I will avail ourselves of the minister's offer to engage in those more detailed conversations. I think, quite frankly, that either I'm not articulating the point I want to make effectively, or the minister isn't picking it up, because I think this is a unique circumstance that the drafters of this agreement-in-principle have considered. It's obviously here for a reason, and it obviously, by design, has chosen to focus, as the minister says, on the parties themselves. What I've suggested is that that should be expanded, or an effective argument can be made for expanding that coverage, to third-party interests for those situations that arise pursuant to paragraphs 18 through 20.

I wonder if we can go to the section of the agreement dealing with lands and resources, and I guess the minister will know, having read some of the same material that I have read, the observations that have been made concerning the various entities in which resources and lands are vested with respect to mineral resources. On Nisga'a lands, of course, it will be owned by the Nisga'a, and that is the case under Indian reserves. Interestingly enough, my recollection is that mineral resources under the fee simple interests will be owned by British Columbia. With respect to mineral resources themselves, can the minister provide some explanation of the rationale that went into deciding who was going to own what?

Hon. J. Cashore: It was for clarity and to prevent conflicts that it provides a very clear definition, and it also avoids getting into complicated arrangements over sharing royalties and that sort of thing on the lands that would not be on the Nisga'a lands. So we believe there's a very valuable line of demarcation there when it comes to identifying the issue of mineral rights, for instance. In so doing, it removes any call on adjacent lands.

M. de Jong: Is that the explanation the minister is offering to explain the difference in ownership between Nisga'a lands, for example, and the additional fee simple interest? I'm not sure I understand how that came about.

Hon. J. Cashore: The fee simple lands that are outside of the Nisga'a lands would be just the same as any other fee simple lands in the province, and therefore they would not enjoy the royalties or the rights of minerals under those lands.

M. de Jong: This is a question that arises later in the document as well. But the minister has pointed out that the additional fee simple interests are presumably covered by the regular land title system -- the registry system. I think the agreement also contemplates that portions, or sections, or some or all of the Nisga'a lands may also be registered if the Nisga'a so choose. Could the minister explain how that will work? What differences can one expect within the Nisga'a lands themselves vis-á-vis the registration process?

Hon. J. Cashore: The intent is that the Nisga'a lands would come into the land title system, and it would be underlined by Crown title. How those details will be done -- how that technical work will be concluded -- is part of the technical work that's going on now toward the work that's attendant to the drafting of the final agreement.

M. de Jong: I think I might just leave that, because if we head down that road now, who knows where it will lead and if we'll ever get back to the order we seem to be trying to go through in terms of discussing this document.

My colleague for Richmond-Steveston, I thought, identified accurately the fact that with respect to land, some of it is owned by the Nisga'a nation, some of the title will vest in Nisga'a government. I have to assume that these terms weren't accidentally used, that there was a decision made about where title would vest when words like ownership were being used -- the notion of communal ownership by the Nisga'a nation. It's the Nisga'a government that owns the mineral resources to the extent that they do own fee simple; additional fee simple interests are owned by the Nisga'a nation. What is the magic in that terminology and the fact that nation and government seem to be used interchangeably?

Hon. J. Cashore: As I understand it, those terms are the legal entities, but I basically agree with the hon. member. I think in the final drafting, we need to address that issue of any apparent inconsistencies so that we try to make this language as simple and consistent as we possibly can. Again, I think that's one of the areas that we need to look at in terms of the wording of that final document.

M. de Jong: In principle, can the minister indicate whether it is his preference or his government's policy...? I suppose his personal preference isn't at issue here. What is the government's policy or preference with respect to the vesting of title in land and resources? Is it something that should accrue to the government specifically? As I read the agreement, I get a different sense when I read about a notion 

[ Page 1792 ]

of communal ownership. I'm not sure I understand all the legal implications of what that means, but it denotes something far different from vesting with a government. Maybe the minister can try as best he can to explain to the committee what his government's preference is with respect to who this land and who these resources should vest in, as between those two entities.

Hon. J. Cashore: Well, in this case, the Nisga'a government owns the land. They are the entity. The city of Vancouver owns land. It has that power of ownership.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister is simply going to tell me that I'm looking for bogeymen where they don't exist. I readily admit to having some difficulty articulating the different notion I have of ownership by a nation -- or the people that comprise that nation, which seems to be what we are speaking about when we talk about communal ownership -- and ownership by a government. We're going to get into all the nuances of Nisga'a central government, Nisga'a village government and local government, but those seem to be different things. Maybe the minister is simply going to tell me that's not the case, that they are one and the same -- Nisga'a nation, Nisga'a people, Nisga'a government -- in his mind. That's not the impression I have.

Hon. J. Cashore: If there are any inconsistencies, obviously those have to be cleared up, but the fact is that the governments are the legal entities.

M. de Jong: Therefore, hon. Chair, the direction from the minister seems to be that the extent to which anything will vest, be it land or resources, it will vest in the guise of the central Nisga'a government.

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be up to the Nisga'a government if any of those assets would be divided and how they would be divided.

M. de Jong: Would the Nisga'a central government have the option of establishing its own registry system, if it so chose?

Hon. J. Cashore: No, there would be no registry system. As I've said before, B.C.'s land registry system would be the one that is operative throughout the area.

M. de Jong: I'm wondering if the minister could clarify this. Is that his expectation? I must confess it is my expectation, from a purely logical point of view, that the Nisga'a would want to avail themselves of the resources available in the land registry system. If the minister is saying that they are compelled to do so with respect to Nisga'a lands, can he point to the section in the agreement that says that?

[3:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: Number 7, page 9.

M. de Jong: Madam Chair, if I might just have a moment to.... When I read that section and read the words, "the final agreement will include provisions to allow for Nisga'a lands" -- and parcels thereof -- "to be incorporated into the provincial land registry system," I interpreted that as being permissive. I didn't read it as a declaration that this was going to take place. It struck me that the option would be available to the Nisga'a.

Hon. J. Cashore: The clause makes it very clear that the Nisga'a have agreed to that. At the technical meetings taking place now, as to how that will be precisely worded in the final agreement, that is part of the work of the drafting of the final document.

M. de Jong: I won't quarrel with the second part, because I am not in a position to do so. The Nisga'a may well, as the minister points out, have agreed to that. It is not clear in the section; in fact, it is quite the contrary. It suggests something quite different. Do I understand that when interests in lands included within the Nisga'a lands are exchanged, the legal descriptions that are applicable and the registration and processes that will be followed in each case will done be via the provincial land title office and land registry system?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair.

M. de Jong: The discussions that the minister has alluded to relate to the technicalities of providing for the fact that there will presumably be different sets of guidelines with respect to property purchase taxes and the like, as well as any number of procedural matters that are unique to Nisga'a lands.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, but the technicalities around the property purchase tax are yet to be finalized.

M. de Jong: Is that a signal from the minister that the question of whether property purchase tax will apply has not yet been settled in these negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: The provincial position, as we go through the final drafting, is that if there was a transfer from Nisga'a government to an individual Nisga'a person or entity, it would be their call as to whether or not they would implement some kind of property purchase tax in that kind of a transaction. If, however, there was a transaction that resulted in land within the Nisga'a lands being transferred from a Nisga'a to a non-Nisga'a, then it's our position that there would be a property purchase tax.

M. de Jong: I'm sorry, but in the case of the latter example where the minister spoke of a transfer between a Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a person -- I think that's the example he offered; Nisga'a to non-Nisga'a individual -- I didn't hear whether he said the property purchase tax would apply or wouldn't apply, and I understand that we're talking about his government's position now as opposed to....

Hon. J. Cashore: Our position is that in that instance it would apply.

M. de Jong: Is it the government's position that a transfer between a Nisga'a person and a Nisga'a person would result in payment of the property purchase tax?

Hon. J. Cashore: That has not been decided yet.

M. de Jong: Does the minister mean it hasn't been determined as between the negotiating parties, or does he mean the government doesn't have a position? If the government does have a position, what is that position?

Hon. J. Cashore: The government position is not yet established, because we are still weighing different aspects of it.

[ Page 1793 ]

M. de Jong: As I'm sure the government will be devoting energies to resolving that question, I will feel entitled to suggest to the minister that he is going to have great difficulty suggesting or justifying a difference as significant as the one that would exist if transfers between individuals attracted tax liability on the basis of ethnicity. I will suggest to the minister now that a policy that is that blatantly driven by ethnic background as to have exemptions for transfers between one group of people, and non-exemptions for others, is not going to do anything to foster a sense of cooperation in the areas where these negotiations are going to take place.

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate that view, and again, we want to hear from everybody in the province with regard to their perspective on that kind of issue.

I would take issue with one thing. I don't think these issues are based on ethnic background. I think we're dealing with a different entity than one we would describe as "ethnic" or "race." For the purposes of this relationship, where the courts have called on us to resolve unresolved issues between government and first nations, to make that into something we would describe as a racial issue, doesn't, I think, really encompass what this relationship is.

M. de Jong: I hope the minister will appreciate that I try very consciously not to dwell on the notion of race in these debates and discussions because I agree that that's not helpful. But the argument the government is going to be confronted with is notwithstanding the fact that we -- the minister and I -- can speak in terms of government-to-government negotiations, the practical results, when these things are actually operating, is that you're going to have two people down at the land titles office, and one of them, depending on how this works out, is going to be paying property purchase tax and one of them isn't. The only thing that's going to separate them is the fact that one of them comes from a different ethnic background.

The minister and I can talk about government-to-government negotiations all we want, but the people on the ground, who are going to be charged with making this thing work, are going to be confronted with quite a different reality. What is the minister's time line for at least establishing a government position on this very specific question of the application of the property purchase tax?

Hon. J. Cashore: Before the end of the calendar year.

M. de Jong: The last issue I'd like to explore with reference to that is that there are lands located within the Nisga'a lands that are now privately held by non-Nisga'a individuals. Does the government have a position on whether or not the property purchase tax would apply to the disposition of those lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, it would apply.

M. de Jong: So that I can sum this up in a way that will make for ease of reference when the minister and I are battling a year or two from now, my understanding is, therefore, that the position of the government with respect to transfers of land between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a is that the tax would not apply, and that for transfers between Nisga'a and Nisga'a, there is no position at this point?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member should have said "would apply" instead of "would not apply" when referring to the transfer between a Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a. Yes, that is the government's position. He is right about the fact that we're still working on the policy on the transfers between Nisga'a and Nisga'a -- whatever entity.

M. de Jong: The last situation we discussed was a transfer between a non-Nisga'a private land holder on Nisga'a lands and anyone else, and the minister's response was, as I recall, that the tax would apply in those circumstances.

Hon. J. Cashore: Correct.

M. de Jong: The sections of the agreement that deal with the possible expropriation of Nisga'a lands have been cited by some -- amongst many other sections of the act -- as a test in determining the extent of the sovereignty that has been bestowed upon the Nisga'a central government. I know the minister shies away from use of that term. I use it here not in any sort of insidious way, but the fact is that all of us -- the province, the federal government -- enjoy, within this federation, limited forms of sovereignty. I think it is fair to say that a degree of sovereignty is being bestowed upon the Nisga'a and the Nisga'a central government. The debate focuses around whether it is an appropriate level of sovereign jurisdiction within the Canadian federation.

Expropriation, as a mechanism available to government, has been referred to as one of the indicators of the extent of the sovereign jurisdiction that is intended to be bestowed upon the Nisga'a central government. My understanding of the agreement is that expropriation, to the extent that it exists at all with respect to Nisga'a lands, is restricted to the federal government. Is that correct?

[3:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: The province will have expropriation powers.

M. de Jong: Expropriation is dealt with on page 14. Paragraph 37, I think, is where it appears initially. That would be the section that I believe the minister is referring to in terms of allowing for expropriation. I wonder if the minister could, with reference to 37(a), indicate what.... I'm going to back up. That would be for adjusted Nisga'a Indian reserves. Maybe I'll just ask this question of the minister: what provisions of this agreement provide for provincial expropriation?

Hon. J. Cashore: The section the hon. member was just referring to is the section dealing with lands outside of the Nisga'a settlement lands. Those criteria in 37(a), (b) and (c).... It is my understanding that they would be pretty standard criteria in other situations.

M. de Jong: I think my question related to the Nisga'a lands themselves, however, and whether provincial expropriation was an option available to the provincial Crown.

Hon. J. Cashore: There are expropriation powers on the Nisga'a lands, and those are limited powers.

M. de Jong: Those are limited, I think, in the case of utility rights-of-way. What other situations are contemplated when the minister says "limited"? We're talking now in terms of provincial expropriation powers. What situations are contemplated?

[ Page 1794 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I wonder if we could table on this question, for the record, 19(a), (b), (c) and (d), because they go into a bit of detail with regard to the actual limits and circumstances.

M. de Jong: I'm inclined to be cooperative with the minister. I'm not sure I know which paragraphs he's referring to.

Hon. J. Cashore: My apologies. It's on page 29 of the agreement-in-principle, section 19. Then it has (a), (b), (c) and (d). I believe that is the total definition that the hon. member seeks.

M. de Jong: Am I clear, then, that when the minister refers to "provincial rights of expropriation," he is referring to that right which is created by paragraph 19 on page 29?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct, hon. Chair.

M. de Jong: How does that differ from the right of expropriation that the federal government enjoys with respect to Nisga'a lands? Just so the minister knows, I'm restricting my questioning to Nisga'a lands proper right now.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is no limit to the amount of land that the federal government is able to expropriate, but the process whereby they would reach that point would be far more rigorous. I would refer the hon. member to page 30, section 20, and all the way to section 31, on page 31.

M. de Jong: Can the minister indicate what was in the minds of the negotiators, particularly the representatives for the province of B.C. and Canada, in differentiating as they have between the powers of expropriation available to those two levels of government?

Hon. J. Cashore: I think this is a reflection of the different negotiating mandates of the two different senior governments. We happen to feel that what we have achieved here suits our purposes better, so we feel confident that the interests of the province are represented here by having very clearly defined the limits within which those expropriations can take place and also having avoided a very convoluted, bureaucratic process in order to achieve it.

M. de Jong: I think an argument can be made that the limits placed on Canada could be as restrictive as those the minister is suggesting are applicable to the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia. It struck me as I went through this that the federal concern seemed to focus on defence-related matters. Can the minister indicate, in terms of what has gone on at the table, if that is correct? Are there other federal interests that could give rise to the expropriation of this land?

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is correct. Defence is a major consideration.

M. de Jong: Are the relevant sections crafted in a way that would make it apparent that this agreement and the treaty that ultimately emanates from it are designed to contemplate federal expropriation for matters unrelated to defence? If so, what would those matters be?

Hon. J. Cashore: We're not aware of any major aspects of the federal position beyond that. But again, I think there will be contexts where it's possible to raise that question with the feds.

M. de Jong: Does the provincial Expropriation Act apply to Nisga'a lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. What does apply is page 29, sections 19(a) to 19(d).

M. de Jong: Does that, then, limit the rights of expropriation that the government of British Columbia has vis-á-vis Nisga'a lands as opposed to all other lands located within the borders of the province of British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's a different process that's come about as a result of negotiations to accomplish a similar end, and it's much better than the circumstances we now have in other Indian reserves.

M. de Jong: That's reassuring. I guess the principle that I would like to discuss is how this agreement will affect the Crown's right to expropriate on Nisga'a lands versus its right with respect to all of the other lands located within the borders of British Columbia.

Hon. J. Cashore: The difference between this and what we have now on Indian reserves, if I understand the question correctly, is that what we have now in relation to a wide variety of circumstances on Indian reserves is almost impossible to deal with. It's so complex, and resorting to certain measures is considered to be very draconian and can cause a great deal of disruption among first nations all over the province once you start to move down that road. Here we have defined ways in which that can be done. One of the major differences would be that you wouldn't have to wait in order to be able to deal with a situation, because, as well as in the relationships that have been designed in other parts of the treaty, here you have it clearly defined how and under what circumstances it's clearly understood that the three parties have negotiated to agree on what those circumstances are and whereby that can be done.

M. de Jong: I'm not quarrelling with the minister that the present process as it relates to dealings with aboriginal reserves is unsatisfactory. My question, though, relates to the future and what happens following the implementation of this agreement, and the relationship that exists between the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia and Nisga'a lands. How are the rights that the Crown enjoys everywhere else in the province different following the implementation of this agreement with respect to Nisga'a lands?

If the Crown wants to expropriate anywhere else in the province, we look to the Expropriation Act for the circumstances under which that can happen: how it's going to happen, the compensation mechanisms, the dispute mechanisms. We look to all of that. Are the Crown's rights vis-á-vis Nisga'a lands limited following the implementation of this? How is this different? How are these lands going to be different?

Hon. J. Cashore: It is different, and I think one of the most specific ways to refer to that is in 19(b): "The specified maximum area will be 3.5 times the area of rights-of-way held 

[ Page 1795 ]

by British Columbia on the effective date for the Nisga'a highway, Crown roads, and public utility rights-of-way, which British Columbia and the Nisga'a tribal council have agreed to be approximately 3,800 hectares."

[3:30]

M. de Jong: Is that an indication that there is a ceiling placed, by virtue of this agreement, on the Crown's right of expropriation? Is that what that means?

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.

M. de Jong: Does it concern the minister that we would make a decision of that sort in 1996, and five, ten, 15 or 50 years from now maybe be confronted by a circumstance that requires something radically different, yet the Crown is precluded from responding because of a 3,800-hectare ceiling?

Hon. J. Cashore: I do believe that this is sufficient and that it will suffice into the future. It is 3.5 times the rights-of-way currently held by the province, which are already fairly significant.

M. de Jong: To that extent, it represents a significant limitation on a right that the Crown, the state, has vis-á-vis all the other lands in the province. When people have suggested that that represents a transfer, or a bestowment, of sovereignty onto Nisga'a government, the minister in the past has reacted and taken exception to those kinds of statements. Yet with respect to this very significant area in the province, one of the traditional Crown prerogatives that are available everywhere else have been contracted away. Is this an indication of a bestowment of a level of sovereignty that extends beyond purely municipal-level government, as we've heard that term used in the past?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is not a sovereignty issue. This is an issue that goes back to something I said at the beginning of the estimates: that we're seeking, through negotiation, to exchange the vague uncertainty of aboriginal rights with the certainty and definition of treaty rights.

M. de Jong: That's fine, and I'm not going to quarrel with the minister on that point. Nonetheless, will the minister agree with me that above and beyond the 3,800 hectares that remain subject to the Crown's prerogative rights, these other Nisga'a lands are something far different than what exists elsewhere in the province? The Crown, by virtue of this agreement, surrenders any ability it may have in the future, when circumstances unknown to us now may arise, to access those lands through -- and I will say this to the minister -- what I regard as the very arbitrary and in many cases unfair procedure of expropriation. It's the grabbing of land from individuals, yet it is one of those remaining Crown prerogative rights that continue. Is it being lost with respect to the rest of these lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. This is different than the circumstances on other land. This is a result of negotiation in order to achieve certainty.

M. de Jong: There are going to be roughly 1,930 square kilometres, plus the existing reserves outside the 1,930 square kilometres, of area comprising these Nisga'a lands. One of the issues that one hears discussed -- sometimes intelligently but more often than not unsatisfactorily -- is: what is Nisga'a land? Where does it fit within the notion of landholding we have in this province and this country? If it's not subject to expropriation, is it still Crown land? We talk about things like fee simple -- the best interest we can hold in our homes, for example. But this is something different. What is it? In the minister's words, what are Nisga'a lands? In the same way that the minister reminds me not to become embroiled in pages and pages of text, tell us what Nisga'a lands are.

Hon. J. Cashore: You could say that they're more similar to private land owned by a government. There are a number of aspects to this. In answer to the question about what is Nisga'a land, there are a number of aspects, based on the negotiated settlement in order to achieve certainty. For instance, Nisga'a lands will be communally owned by the Nisga'a nation. Title will be held by the Nisga'a government. Nisga'a lands will be lands within British Columbia that, like all the lands in the province, would revert to the Crown if title becomes vacant. Nisga'a lands will not be lands reserved for Indians, and I think we all rejoice on that one -- no more Indian reserves. Canada will not hold any legal beneficial interest in Nisga'a lands. The Nisga'a government will be able to subdivide Nisga'a lands into private parcels and sell or lease these parcels. Nisga'a lands in subdivided private parcels will be brought into the provincial land title system.

Are there some unique features of these lands that are not 100 percent the way in which the Land Title Act applies to all other lands? The answer is yes, because that's what this is all about: negotiations in order to achieve certainty.

M. de Jong: I hope the minister doesn't misinterpret the purpose of my exploring the issue. I don't think there has been a lot of discussion about what this means and about the implication of what is being created here. I've had learned individuals say to me that when you think of this Nisga'a land in the context the minister has just suggested, which is as private land owned by government.... The question is asked: what would be the response of the British Columbia government or the Canadian government, for example, if the Nisga'a government, in whom title is vested, decides to transfer a portion of these lands to a foreign power? Do limitations exist on their right do that? Implicit in the question, I think, is undesirable foreign powers, but that's probably a moot point. Are there limitations? Should there be limitations? If there are, what are those limitations?

Hon. J. Cashore: In regard to something the member said at the beginning of his last line of questioning, I do want to make it very clear that I think this discussion is very valuable, and I don't read anything other than that into the comments.

With regard to the question, I think it's very similar to what the situation would be with anybody selling private land. If somebody owned private land in B.C. and decided they wanted to sell it to an entity that the hon. member would describe as subversive or whatever, I think the same standards would apply. Apart from that, I don't think there's much more to say about that. It's land that they would be able to sell, as any private party would.

M. de Jong: When I read paragraph 6 on page 9, I presumed that clause arose in response to this longstanding and historically taken position of paternalism that governments have demonstrated towards aboriginal people in limiting their rights to deal with their land as they see fit. Yet, depending on how that is interpreted, the limiting mechanisms the minister alluded to may not operate against Nisga'a lands as they would against land that he or I might own 

[ Page 1796 ]

privately, for example. So I think paragraph 6, in that respect, bestows upon the Nisga'a a control -- a jurisdiction or sovereignty, if you will -- that obviously they haven't enjoyed to this point. It's a very significant step.

Hon. J. Cashore: When I read No. 6, I think it just says what it says: they're equal citizens to the rest of us, with the same benefits and responsibilities.

M. de Jong: Clause 6 affords that legitimate right -- I would say it's legitimate -- to the Nisga'a government. My understanding is that it then falls to the Nisga'a government to decide to what extent, if any, the Nisga'a people themselves, as individuals, should enjoy unrestricted rights of property ownership and transfer. Am I reading this correctly?

Hon. J. Cashore: If I understood the question, the answer is yes, the Nisga'a would decide.

M. de Jong: Does it trouble the minister to know that in spite of having removed the paternalism or eliminated the relationship which has existed up to now between the Nisga'a and levels of government, that could be perpetuated between the Nisga'a government and its own people, that is apparently an issue that will be left entirely within their realm? It gets back to this: the difference between land that is vested in the government or land that is communally owned. In our Charter, we don't have constitutionally guaranteed rights to hold property, either. But in this case, there is nothing in this agreement that bestows upon the individual Nisga'a the right to do that which we take for granted with respect to land we live on and own.

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, in this negotiated relationship, the Nisga'a would be in a situation where, according to democratic principles, should they not approve of the nature of administration they receive, they would have the same way of dealing with that -- by throwing out their leaders at an election at the polls.

I don't see the argument that this creates a new form of paternalism. It recognizes that in democracy there are different forms of the way in which government exists, and within their structure I think that is respected. Again, their people do have the power of the ballot box.

[3:45]

M. de Jong: Is it fair to say, then, that the government took very little issue with the approach to this issue set out in paragraph 6 on page 9 -- that the government was content to see land devolve to the Nisga'a in this way?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

M. de Jong: As one goes through the agreement, we spoke earlier about the difference in terminology between "Nisga'a nation" and "Nisga'a government." Another area where that arises is where we see rights vis-á-vis land and resources vesting in "government" or, in other areas, in "central government." I can point to some examples of that if I can find them -- for example, commercial back-country recreation tenure is issued to Nisga'a "central government" as opposed to Nisga'a "government." The definitions of those two entities are quite different. They include, in the case of government, local and village councils. Is that simply an incidence of poor draftsmanship -- without meaning that in a pejorative way? Is that accidental or is that by design? Should I be looking at the clauses that differentiate between "central government" and "government" in these cases as meaning something, or is it just accidental?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's intentional. It could be Nisga'a central government or Nisga'a village government. They have those choices.

M. de Jong: What was the rationale at play in deciding whether a particular interest should vest in central government or in all three levels of Nisga'a government?

Hon. J. Cashore: B.C. wanted to be able to talk to either one central government or four village governments, for instance, so it needed to define those entities.

M. de Jong: Just on that point, is it fair for me to assume that the province of British Columbia, indeed Canada, would never be negotiating at the local level but would always be with a Nisga'a central government?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

M. de Jong: So the explanation that the minister gave previously with respect to the differences between vesting Nisga'a central government or some of the other.... That would be for purely internal Nisga'a purposes. The province would never be dealing on any of those issues with local village governments, but would rely upon Nisga'a central government to be representative.

Hon. J. Cashore: I wouldn't want to go so far as to absolutely preclude that, because there may be, for practical purposes, some instance -- I can't think of it now, but dealing with police services, traffic, or something like that, say -- where at some level of the provincial bureaucracy there would be direct communications. But obviously there would have to be protocols that absolutely respected the role of the Nisga'a central government, so that we didn't get into going around that. There would have to be a very clear understanding, if we were talking to a Nisga'a village government on a particular matter, that it was done with the understanding and sanction of the Nisga'a central government.

M. de Jong: I think I understand the point that the minister is trying to make. When we get to the section dealing with self-government.... One of the observations the minister has heard in the past -- and I'll make it here -- is that rarely has a society been encumbered with or profited by as much government as the Nisga'a appear to be contemplating with respect to this agreement.

When I go through the sections dealing with lands, I want to ask the minister to confirm that I am reading them correctly. Within Nisga'a lands, there are Nisga'a public lands, village lands and private lands. Are those the three types of lands that are included within Nisga'a lands?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

M. de Jong: Nisga'a public lands are probably self-explanatory, but the minister can tell me what he sees as being included within that broader definition. I'd like the minister to tell me how, in his view, we would differentiate Nisga'a public lands from Nisga'a village lands and private lands?

[ Page 1797 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Village lands are lands that are related to a village entity and would be administered by that village. Private lands are lands that would be owned by a private individual or corporation. The generic Nisga'a lands would be all the rest.

M. de Jong: Would we expect village lands to be vested in Nisga'a central government or in a separate village entity? I'm trying to think of these in terms that we know. If we take Nisga'a public lands to mean the equivalent of our provincial Crown lands, would village lands be lands vested municipally? I'm trying to get a sense for where these various lands would be vested and who would own them.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Nisga'a would decide how those definitions and descriptions of village lands would work out.

M. de Jong: The agreement, as I read it, only seems to contemplate, insofar as the Nisga'a government is concerned, lands that vest within the Nisga'a central government. So what I hear the minister saying is that if there's going to be a further delineation down to what we would see as a village level, they would then have to incorporate or create their own entity -- though it strikes me that, if these lands are going to be subject to the provincial Crown registry system, there would have to be an incorporation of some sort; there would have to be an entity that can hold land pursuant to provincial law. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: At this point the understanding is that they would be vested in the Nisga'a government. They have not yet told us whether it may develop that they would be vested in the central government or the village government.

M. de Jong: Am I correct, though, in assuming that by virtue of what we've discussed previously about the utilization of the provincial land title registry system, regardless of what might be the Nisga'a preference, the fact of the matter is that any agency of theirs that they wanted to vest title in would need to satisfy the requirements of the provincial Land Title Act? Is that a correct assumption for me to make?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

M. de Jong: The exclusions from Nisga'a lands, and there are some.... I'm only concerned about two of them, and that is fee simple lands that exist on the effective date. I presume what we're talking about here are lands owned by third parties within the Nisga'a lands themselves.

Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.

M. de Jong: Is the minister in a position to advise what percentage or roughly what area of the 1,930 square kilometres we're dealing with when we talk about fee simple lands -- how much, how many owners?

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to make some points very clearly here. There are those lands within the boundaries; they are netted out. In other words, they are not added in to the total. The total amount -- and this is an unconfirmed number -- is about 6,000 hectares. We think that's very close. So if you drew a line on the map describing the Nisga'a lands, those private lands would be netted out.

M. de Jong: Rather than get caught up in the number, I guess I'm more concerned.... I presume there is a registry that the minister has available to him of those interests, of those owners and of the amount of land affected.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that assumption is correct.

M. de Jong: Is that a document that the minister is able to make available?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes. It's in the public domain, and we can assist in finding that for the hon. member.

M. de Jong: With that other broad category of excluded lands, are those Crown lands subject to agricultural leases and woodlot licences? Similarly, is there a registry available of what those interests are and whose third-party interests would be affected?

[4:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: There are two agricultural leases and two woodlots. That information is on the public record, and we can assist with making that available.

M. de Jong: When it deals with the issue of lands and land interests, the agreement makes specific provision for certain interests that exist at the moment: rights-of-way, easements, fee simple interests, licences or permits associated with fee simple interests, utility interests, road accesses -- and I think it mentions angling and guide licences, as well as traplines. The impression one has is that unless a specific provision is made for the continuation of an existing interest, there's a presumption that that interest will be terminated. Is that a correct assumption to be making?

Hon. J. Cashore: We read it the other way. We're fully documenting and preserving existing interests.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I didn't hear the first part of what the minister said.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm just saying that we read it the other way than the way that I believe the hon. member referenced in his question.

M. de Jong: If I can direct the minister to those sections of the agreement that deal with access to lands, they begin at page 26. I'm looking at paragraph 36 on page 32. There is a discussion that takes place about Nisga'a government agents' access to non-Nisga'a land, and it provides for that under certain circumstances. I guess what I would like to know from the minister is: what was being contemplated when that terminology was settled upon for this agreement-in-principle? Can he expand on what appears in the text of the agreement?

Hon. J. Cashore: I wonder if the member would repeat the question.

M. de Jong: I'm looking at page 32, paragraph 36, which addresses the issue of Nisga'a government agents enjoying access to non-Nisga'a land. There's a sort of general description of the circumstances under which that might occur. I wonder if the minister can expand upon that and maybe provide more concrete examples of what was in the minds of the negotiators, or his negotiators in particular, when they agreed to that particular provision.

[ Page 1798 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: One good example is where the Nisga'a have a fish biologist who's doing research work. In order to carry out that work, there are circumstances when from time to time she is required to cross Crown land.

M. de Jong: The provision that provides for the granting or the seeking of prior approval suggests to me that part and parcel of the ongoing negotiations -- following, actually, the final resolution of this matter -- will focus around the creation of protocols that relate to the relationship between Nisga'a central government and the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada. Has there been thought given to the forum under which those ongoing discussions will take place? Is that something that the minister contemplates will occur during the regular course of business between the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Nisga'a central government? Or does the minister contemplate another forum being created for that purpose?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would view this as administrative work, where officials of government and of the Nisga'a would work together to establish how those protocols would be carried out. But the hon. member is right. This is really a protocol section, an enabling protocol section.

M. de Jong: I quarrel vigorously with that sort of characterization of the section. However, I want to go from paragraph 36 to paragraph 37, where it talks about Nisga'a citizens having access to non-Nisga'a lands. On the face of it, I think I understand what's being discussed here. But can the minister tell me why it's necessary to articulate those rights in the manner in which it's contemplated here, if we begin from the premise that Nisga'a citizens are Canadian citizens and enjoy those rights anyway?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would reference the last words in the sentence under section 37. I think you would see from that that this section is really more to protect the province than the other way around. I think the hon. member is right in asking: "Why would you describe a situation when people already have those rights, having made it very clear on many occasions that they are citizens of Canada and B.C.?" But this is: "...provided that such access will not interfere with other authorized uses." In other words, section 37 does have an aspect to it that provides a limitation because of wanting to protect against circumstances where access could possibly interfere with other authorized uses. It's to protect the provincial interest.

M. de Jong: I don't want to belabour the point, but I'll make this submission to the minister. That same caveat applies to me. I am entitled to engage in certain activities provided that when I do so, I don't interfere with other authorized uses. I'm not sure the minister's response addresses my question about the need for the provision in the first place.

Hon. J. Cashore: We feel it is required for certainty, given the history of the debate around what is a right and what isn't a right. The context is one of ambiguity and uncertainty, which we're trying to change. Perhaps it's an abundance of caution, but it's for greater certainty and clarity.

M. de Jong: As we plod along through the Nisga'a agreement, I will ask the minister's indulgence. Some of my other colleagues have other questions, some relating to the Nisga'a agreement. Perhaps we might proceed with that.

W. Hurd: I just want to engage the minister in a more general discussion about the progress of the first nations settlements in British Columbia -- specifically about the Crown Land Activities document that is guiding a number of ministries with respect to their relationships with the first nations in the province. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee, with respect to the Crown Land Activities document, whether there are any cases before the courts that have arisen from an interpretation of this document or whether there are any cases before the courts where negotiation with the first nations is continuing. As I review the scope of the Crown Land Activities document, it indicates that even though litigation may be in place, there still is a requirement by the policy to engage in efforts to identify so-called aboriginal rights that may or may not have been extinguished. I wonder if the minister can clarify this: is he aware of any instances in the province where we are engaged in litigation at the same time as the Crown is carrying on an effort to identify an aboriginal right, which is called for under this particular policy framework guiding the current government?

Hon. J. Cashore: By law, we are required to consult. The Crown land activities policy is the modus operandi that we put in place to enable us to fulfil the law that requires us to consult. But, whether there is litigation going on or not, we are still required to consult.

I think we could find examples where there is consultation taking place with first nations with whom there is litigation. For instance, just to give an example -- and my officials may wish to get me to clarify this further when next I stand up -- the Gitxsan would be an example where we have recognized that that litigation process is to play out its course. The litigation is no longer suspended, but the law still requires that where an activity is involved, government officials have to consult.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, the central thrust of the Crown lands activity policy is that as a result of the Delgamuukw case and the Sparrow case, the fiduciary responsibility of the government has changed. The "Legal Implications" section of the framework agreement denotes: "Now, if the province wishes to engage in any activity on Crown land, it should make its best efforts to first determine if aboriginal rights exist in that area and if the proposed activity will infringe upon those rights."

I guess I'm trying to determine whether the minister is at all concerned whether the consultation about establishing an unextinguished right that is continuing may have the effect of jeopardizing the Crown's case before the courts if the matter is being adjudicated in that forum, and whether there's wisdom in proceeding with this policy at a time when we have simultaneous litigation that may be occurring with respect to this issue or any other.

[4:15]

Hon. J. Cashore: The courts made it very clear that we have to consult. I would say that there aren't many examples there, however, where the exact circumstances before the court are the exact circumstances of the issue that requires consultation. For instance, let's say that you're in a relationship of litigation with band A over some broad range of resource issues, and there is a Crown land activity in the area they have described as their traditional territory. Say the issue has to do with burial grounds. Whether that court case.... Whether it is a relationship of litigation between the parties or not, we are still obligated to consult. Therefore the question 

[ Page 1799 ]

-- do you think that when you are required to consult, it might have an impact on certain other aspects? -- is hypothetical. I suppose that in some instances it might, but in the specific instances I'm trying to bring to mind in seeking to answer this question, I have not been able to come up with an example of where that would be the case. But it could be.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can redirect the minister's attention, then, to the text of the Crown Land Activities document. It indicates that prior to the Sparrow and Delgamuukw decisions,

"...the province needed only to consult with first nations regarding Crown activities on unoccupied Crown land, as articulated in the 'Fiduciary Obligations Policy Framework' and implemented through the joint stewardship initiative. Now, if the province wishes to engage in any activity on Crown land, it should make its best efforts to first determine if aboriginal rights exist in that area and if the proposed activity will infringe upon those rights."

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no; I can't give a number on that. We consult on a wide variety of issues, but that's something that hasn't been enumerated, to my knowledge. If I understood part of the member's comment about circumstances where the first nation does not cooperate, where there's consultation under the Crown land activities policy, there aren't guidelines for dealing with that non-cooperation. Non-cooperation cannot result in a de facto moratorium. I mean, there has to be a reasonable time in which, without that cooperation, we have to be able to demonstrate to the court that we've done due diligence. Then we can proceed.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could clarify for the committee the nature of the rights that might be identified under the Crown Land Activities document. Are these rights that then have impact on future court cases? Would they have potential constitutional implications?

I'm trying to determine whether the minister is completely satisfied that any decisions the ministry staff make, in interpreting this rather ambitious policy framework, will in fact have no impact on the treaty negotiation process, the constitutional implications and perhaps any litigation that many occur. As the minister knows, all three of these processes are ongoing. I'm just seeking assurance, I suppose, that ministry staff, in identifying an unextinguished aboriginal right, are not in turn impacting any of those other issues that may be before the courts or the Treaty Commission.

Hon. J. Cashore: The simple fact is that there could be implications. I can't give the hon. member that comfort. We are dealing with a policy here that's based on advice we have received from the Attorney General. I mean, once something's out there, it's out there. You can't say it won't have implications. What we have to do as a matter of policy and principle is seek to fulfil the principle that negotiation is better than litigation and, wherever possible, to work things out in that way.

Sometimes there would be instances.... For instance, say there was an actual matter that was the subject of a consultation under the Crown land activities policy and that happened to be the very topic being discussed in court. In my view, in that instance you would cease dealing with the issue that's under the Crown land activities policy and recognize that the court process was now active and underway on that particular issue. But, as you know, you could be in court with a first nation on a whole bunch of other issues, so in that case the policy would have to apply. So, no, we can't say there would never be implications. But at the same time, we want to see negotiations as being where we recognize the opportunity to make the greatest improvements, because there we can come up with negotiated settlements.

W. Hurd: I think the minister can see the trouble and difficulty I'm having with this, because the section of the Crown Land Activities document intituled "Legal Implications" indicates:

"Now, if the province wishes to engage in any activity on Crown land, it should first make its best efforts to determine if aboriginal rights exist in that area and if the proposed activity will infringe upon those rights. If it is determined the activity does infringe upon aboriginal rights, that infringement should be avoided where possible, unless it can be justified pursuant to the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada."

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the courts have identified rights such as subsistence, harvesting, gathering of cultural objects for ceremonies, and that sort of thing. So there are those definitions that the courts have provided with regard to how you identify a right. I don't think that any ministry establishes a right. I think that you try to use the guidance that's been given by the courts to identify where a right does exist, and then seek to ensure that those rights aren't violated, in order to maintain the legal correctness of the Crown's activities. What we want to do here is recognize that the Crown land activities policy is not a policy that is essentially carried out by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. It is carried out by those line ministries that need the guidance of a policy to be able to fulfil their legal requirements. Therefore it's the Forests ministry; Energy; in some instances, Municipal Affairs; and so forth.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I can ask the minister a more simplified question. The Crown Land Activities and Aboriginal Rights: Policy Framework document mentions that, as of 1982, existing aboriginal rights were protected and continue to be protected by section 35.1 of the Constitution Act. I guess my question to the minister is: as a result of the ministry's interpretation of aboriginal rights, would any new ones -- should they be identified -- fall under section 35.1 of the Constitution Act? In other words, are we adding to the number of rights that might be identified, and are we enshrining them in any way under section 35.1 of the Constitution Act?

[ Page 1800 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

W. Hurd: Then I would ask the question again: when the Crown does make a determination that there is an unextinguished right and that the Crown's activity might infringe upon it, can the minister assure us that that's where it will be contained? Will it just be a matter of consultation within the ministry? Or is the minister confirming that it might have broader implications in terms of a future court case, which then would establish a precedent and could have, in fact, constitutional implications?

Hon. J. Cashore: It may end up in court, and if a court makes a decision that broadens definitions or adds new criteria, the government has to respect that. In listening to these questions, I have been hearing talk of the government establishing rights. But I don't think it is the government that establishes rights. The government develops the policy to enable line ministries to do the legal thing in relationship to where those rights exist. To be able to do that is somewhat complex. There has to be some consultation between the two entities: the first nation and the government line ministry.

W. Hurd: I have no wish to belabour the point, but as the legal implications of the Crown Land Activities document indicate, it isn't just consultation. As a result of the court cases, it's a requirement now for the Crown, for the ministry, to take the next step, which is to identify an unextinguished aboriginal right and to avoid infringing upon that activity. Clearly there is some recognition that where there is an unextinguished right, the ministry has a responsibility to identify it and to take certain steps to avoid dealing with it. I guess I hear the minister saying that yes, down the road that might, if it were ever were dealt with by a court of law, be deemed to be a recognition by the Crown that there was a right that maybe wasn't previously identified. Is that a correct assumption?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's very hypothetical. I don't presume to predict one way or the other what is going to come out of the courts. But I have been following these cases, and I think that there is a fairly confined pattern to the kind of language that's used in court judgments around these rights. I don't see that; I haven't seen recent evidence of the courts having expanded that.

W. Hurd: I want to ask the minister another series of questions about the compensation issue. As the minister knows, in the last session the government formed a commission to review the cost implications of taking resource interests -- for any purpose, for that matter.... The Schwindt commission, the minister will recall, was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the entire compensation issue for forest licences and mining licences. As I recall, the Schwindt commission died, and there was no substitution for the Expropriation Act.

[4:30]

I wonder if the minister could take a minute to describe to the committee.... When we do get into treaty settlements and there is an extinguishment of a resource interest, I wonder if he could advise me whether the third parties would be expected to pursue a normal course of action to deal with expropriation and compensation. Are we assuming a different process now, through the Treaty Commission, in which the Crown compensates any third parties for taking resource interests?

Hon. J. Cashore: Our number one consideration is to seek to avoid impacting on the interests of those third parties. Where that is unavoidable, the issue of compensation then becomes an issue which is a matter of policy. We have the Treaty Negotiations Advisory Committee, which is a committee of third parties provincewide. We have been, are and continue to be involved in papers and discussions with the Treaty Negotiations Advisory Committee, through one of their sectoral arms, to advise the government on their position with regard to this. Those useful deliberations are assisting us in identifying the specifics of how these compensation issues will be dealt with.

W. Hurd: I have with me a document published by the First Nations Summit with respect to expectations they have regarding lands and resources. I've just highlighted a couple of passages in terms of their expectations under the process. They indicate: "Every region in British Columbia falls within the first nations territories. The land and all legal interests within these territories are subject to aboriginal title." The second point that they make is: "Interests such as leases and licences granted to third parties or retained by governments for its agencies must be included in the negotiations." I would assume, if that's the expectation of the First Nations Summit, that at some point the transfer of those interests would have to occur. Is that a reasonable expectation, or would we be looking at the transfer of cash-in-lieu? Is that the direction of the ministry?

It occurs to me that the expectations of the First Nations Summit may be totally different from what I heard the minister say. So I have a couple of a questions. First of all, does he agree that those legal interests within the territories are subject to the notion of aboriginal title? Secondly, is it his understanding that all interests -- licences -- are to be included in the negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: On question one -- subject to aboriginal title -- the answer is no. I see that type of statement within a document of one of the tripartite entities as something like drawing a line on the map; they try to express the broadest possible definition they can of their interpretation of what their rights are. A document comes out from one party, which obviously has a certain vested interest and a bias with regard to how those things should work.

With regard to the second question, yes, there could be some negotiation around that, but it does not necessarily mean that that's going to result in some sort of dire consequence. The fact that matters do, from time to time, find their way onto a negotiating table doesn't mean that we always anticipate there's going to be a negative result to those third parties. Again, the position of the province in all instances, as I have said before, is to avoid circumstances where third-party interests would be impacted.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister could enlighten me, then, because I have a fair amount of confusion about the province's role in negotiating the treaties, in terms of valuing the licences that might now be in the hands of third parties. As we negotiate these treaties over a number of years, I wonder if the minister could advise the committee what process might be followed to establish a value for the licences within the area under discussion. Is that something that will be done on an ongoing basis? Is it something that will be re-evaluated? Can the minister assure us that, in terms of the unextinguished rights of resource holders, the same rules of expropriation might apply in the future? I think it's an important question, 

[ Page 1801 ]

because clearly the issue of certainty -- the issue of establishing value for third-party interests held -- is critical and central to the whole treaty negotiation process.

I wonder if the minister can describe for me -- because I'm unclear -- how third-party interests such as forest licences, mining leases, grazing rights, etc., might be valuated by the Crown. Or will they be valuated for the purposes of settling these treaty negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: There will be valuation. We are in the process, as I've already said, of discussing this with the Treaty Negotiations Advisory Committee -- seeking their advice on it, as a major step toward the development of this policy. Another matter that relates to this is the federal-provincial cost-sharing agreement.

W. Hurd: I understand that others wish to get involved in the debate, and I have other questions. But I will ask one more -- again, it relates to the comments or observations from the First Nations Summit document surrounding the issue of certainty. This issue may have been canvassed previously. If it has been, I welcome the opportunity to go back to the Blues to review it. The observation made by the First Nations Summit is that a major benefit of treaties will be certainty of jurisdiction and ownership over land and resources. First nations have consistently rejected establishment of aboriginal rights as a mechanism for achieving certainty. They therefore support recent initiatives to replace the federal government's policy of extinguishing aboriginal rights with the recognition of aboriginal rights.

Am I correct in assuming that the position of the first nations in entering these negotiations is that extinguishment will not occur at the end of the process? Will it continue for an indefinite period? As I read the issue of certainty as it's described by the First Nations Summit, it clearly indicates -- to me, anyway -- that no matter what legal agreement or treaty may be reached, it does not extinguish the notion of aboriginal rights. I wonder if the minister could just clarify for the committee, perhaps, his view or what he thinks the Treaty Commission may do to deal with this issue. I think one of the ways the whole Treaty Commission process has been sold to British Columbians is through the notion that we will have certainty and finality. Does he believe that can occur without the notion of extinguishment?

Hon. J. Cashore: I should make it very clear, first of all, that I won't seek to presume to give an answer explaining a First Nations Summit document. I think that they would have to do that; I won't do that.

Yes, we have had this discussion previously in estimates, but I will say that in that discussion I made it very clear that to me, the essence of the certainty issue is through negotiations, exchanging the vagueness and the uncertainty of aboriginal rights with the certainty of clearly defined treaty rights. There have been a lot of discussions around language and what language will be used in order to define what we essentially seek to achieve here. That language is still being worked on. In the Nisga'a case, for instance, it's still a matter of consultation and negotiation.

The position of the government is that certainty is the positive definition of the necessary outcome. In order to achieve that outcome, we see it as the exchange -- the getting rid of the vague and uncertain status quo of aboriginal rights and replacing them with the clarity and the certainty of treaty rights, which are based on tripartite negotiations. I cannot speak for the position of the summit or even for that of the federal government, which is very slow in coming forward with its paper on this issue. But I can speak for the provincial government and say that that is the basis upon which we are negotiating this issue.

W. Hurd: The last comment I would make on the subject is just to express a concern that the minister has acknowledged that in the Crown Land Activities documents there is a possibility that aboriginal rights -- new rights -- could be identified. I just express the concern that without the extinguishment part of the whole process, there appears to me to be nothing to prevent a reopening of other issues surrounding aboriginal rights either through the courts or through additional blockades or other acts. That will bring the exact opposite of what the minister suggests -- certainty. I would welcome a clarification -- perhaps not in this set of estimates, perhaps in the future -- how certainty can be achieved without extinguishment. Because if indeed rights are more general and more interpretive, then clearly, what is spelled out in the treaty might in some way not be the end of the process. That's the only issue that I would raise.

Hon. J. Cashore: In response to that, I would point out that in the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, for instance, you have the certainty of defining certain situations that, prior to then, did not have that definition. There has been some debate around this. In my view, when you go from the uncertainty of undefined rights with regard to a resource such as wildlife to the certainty of a defined amount of that resource, that is a first nation giving up something through negotiation where, in their view, it could be argued that it's a benefit not to have it defined.

There are certain benefits that therefore do and should accrue to all parties as a result of a treaty negotiation, but that absolutely has to be certain and final. You simply cannot have it both ways. The language has to be in there at the conclusion of the final document that comes forward for ratification. I think we're going to be hearing a lot about this through the select standing committee process as well as through other processes such as the one I mentioned a while ago, our ongoing discussions with the Treaty Negotiations Advisory Committee.

[4:45]

J. Weisgerber: I want to get involved before we move too far away from the issue of consultation, because this area has caused a fair amount of distress for third parties over the last six or seven years. As I reflect on this notion of consultation coming out of the Delgamuukw decision and the implementation of a process of consultation by the provincial government through the Crown land activities policy, what I want to seek from the minister today is some sense of how this process is evolving, developing and perhaps maturing as Crown agencies and third parties get more experience in the area of consultation.

It seemed to me that, in the early going, the consultation process was plagued with two particular difficulties. The first was an interpretation by many agencies of the province -- ministries such as Forests, Lands and, perhaps to a lesser degree, Municipal Affairs and others -- that consultation required the agency to get the consent of the band before progressing. I wonder if the minister can tell us if we have moved to a new understanding of the responsibilities of government with respect to consultation.

Hon. J. Cashore: Anyone who listened closely to that question would find, in some ways, that the question 

[ Page 1802 ]

answered the question, because I think the hon. member did describe the way this process has been evolving. For instance, the hon. member mentioned that there was sort of an assumption at one time -- an incorrect assumption -- that consent was required where Crown land activity was contemplated. I think there's a greater awareness now. It has evolved to the point where there's a greater awareness and understanding on the part of line ministries and, indeed, on the part of all the players that you have to be able to demonstrate that you've done your due diligence with regard to the obligation to consult, but that that does not mean it amounts to a veto or allows it to become a virtual veto. Yes, it's been fairly clear from the beginning where we had to head with the policy, but the fact is that the policy is maturing in its application.

It is not without problems. From ministry to ministry, I would say that there are some variations, perhaps, in the matter of degree, so we're still trying to find ways to make sure the policy works as efficiently and effectively as it possibly can. All the MLAs who live in rural areas know that there's a wide variety of circumstances that can come up, and it is therefore kind of a cutting-edge issue. I think, as the hon. member said, that the process is developing and there is a better awareness and a better application emerging.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister advise whether Aboriginal Affairs assumes the central role in coordinating the way government ministries respond to consultations? What I heard the minister say was that there were varying responses with different ministries -- and, I know, in the early going, quite radically different responses from one forest district to the next, for example, based on the interpretation by the district forest manager, the regional manager, etc. Is it the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that sets out some direction to public employees and others about their options and their responses to consultations?

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs does not coordinate the other ministries. The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has had the responsibility of coordinating the writing of the policy. That writing of the policy required a lot of legal input; that being the case, that was then disseminated to the various line ministries that had the responsibility to carry out that policy. So we don't coordinate. We do monitor, and we do hear from people -- MLAs and others in the regions of the province -- about concerns, where they feel that it's not being dealt with as well as they would like it to be. That enables us, then, to have ongoing discussions with those line ministries to try to deal with issues such as timing and that sort of thing.

I think the hon. member is also right. I'm not going to try to suggest otherwise. I think that you will find, from forest district to forest district, that perhaps there are different examples as to how intensely the consultation was applied, and that sort of thing. I think a certain amount of that stands to reason with such a large ministry as the Ministry of Forests.

Our ministry is a recipient of feedback on how this is working. We do try to take that feedback up with the various ministries and try to ensure that we are moving towards achieving evenness of application, nevertheless recognizing that there is a very wide variety of circumstances that are encountered.

J. Weisgerber: Often agencies of the provincial government -- ministries and other agencies of government -- will require third parties to engage in consultation. Part of lease applications -- agricultural leases, those kinds of things -- will include a requirement that the proponent, or the person making the application, consult with first nations. Is it the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs that would provide those individuals with some direction as to what is expected of them -- what their obligations are, what their options are -- if in fact their proposal meets with an objection during that consultation?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. It would be the line ministry that would provide that relationship.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister, then, tell me if there is some kind of standard material that is available to a person seeking an agricultural lease or a woodlot licence, or to build an access to a quarry or something? Is there some kind of central information that guides individual British Columbians in what is, for most, an entirely new undertaking?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. There is no central handout. We have not produced at set of leaflets or handouts that would describe the wide variety of circumstances that might arise. But there is the responsibility of the line ministry to work with that party, to help them, assist them in identifying the criteria in a particular instance. Again, those criteria go back to an earlier part of our discussion about half an hour ago when we were talking about the kinds of criteria that came out of the Sparrow and Delgamuukw decisions.

J. Weisgerber: The last thing I want to touch on in this area of consultation is the question of the lack of response. I have a fair amount of sympathy for people hung up in the process, where they can't get approvals. I think we all know cases of individuals waiting a year, a year and a half, two years to get approval from an agency, the answer being that they still haven't heard from them; there has not been a response to their request for the band to comment. I wonder if the minister can tell me if this process has evolved so that there is some accommodation for the lack of response.

Having said that, I think bands are often inundated with requests. They don't have the resources. As a result, you wind up getting a stack of referrals that the band simply is either unable or unwilling to respond to, and the process seems to get bottlenecked.

Hon. J. Cashore: On the question of lack of response, we did canvass that quite a bit about three-quarters of an hour ago. I will say that lack of response is not a justification for unreasonably holding up Crown land activity. The line ministries have been identifying time lines to their staff with regard to how much time it should take to be able to get consultation concluded. If there is a non-response, that does not justify the project not proceeding. So there are some time lines and guidelines on that sort of thing.

With regard to the question the hon. member raises about the lack of band resources to deal with some of these consultation issues, it's a very good question. It's a very difficult situation. I don't really have a solution to that. I just have to stand here and say that that is often the case. There are circumstances where some bands are somewhat overwhelmed by the number of requests they're having. We're trying to look at ways of finding economies of scale to assist with that, but we really believe it would not be a good policy for us to start getting into the area, which I think is a federal area. As long as they remain Indian reserves, I don't think it would be right for us to get into the area of capacity-building in that way, although we do see that happening in some other 

[ Page 1803 ]

ways through joint ventures and that sort of thing. So there is a situation in some parts of the province.... Some aboriginal communities are very well-equipped to deal with such issues, but in others it's not the case. I think the member has identified a real problem.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister give me a sense of what is considered to be a reasonable time for response? How long are our agencies expected to await a response?

Hon. J. Cashore: Those are set by line ministries.

J. Weisgerber: The minister may be aware that there is a certain amount of economic pressure or economic leverage that comes to the bands as a result of this consultation process. It's an area that raised itself. I first became aware of it in the northeast, in the area of gas and oil exploration, where time lines are very short, and contractors and others in the process are often advised that the way to expedite a response is to engage in some commercial undertaking with the band. In other words, people are often told that the band has a certain amount of equipment -- first-aid ambulances, graders, caterpillars, etc. -- and on those projects where the equipment is employed, the response on consultations can be expedited. However, in areas where the band is not economically or commercially involved, then the resources of the band are simply stretched to the degree that they can't respond, and the result is....

The message becomes pretty clear: if you want to get on with your project, get involved in some economic or commercial arrangement with the band. That's pretty intimidating, particularly for people who compete with the bands in those commercial enterprises. Has the minister looked at that issue? I know it was brought to his attention and to that of others as long as a year ago. Can the minister tell me what kind of progress has been made in ensuring that there is some kind of fairness and equity in the way that leverage is used?

[5:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: Let's acknowledge, first of all, that there are a number of instances which I don't think fit into the example the hon. member is giving. There are very good business relationships between a lot of first nations and a lot of businesses; those are win-win situations. I think we see some examples with Lignum Forest Products up in the Quesnel area.

In my position as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, it's difficult to be able to adjudicate situations like that, because most of the information that you receive is anecdotal. Apart from going into some sort of process where the situation can be adjudged and different parties can come and argue their own interpretation of somebody's interpretation of events, it's a very difficult area to get into. So the short answer is no, I haven't made a lot of headway in terms of being able to find a way in which the province can address that issue. I think, though, that if there were such a process, you'd probably find that there are a variety of situations and that in some cases perhaps the accusations aren't as serious as they are in others.

No, we have not really addressed this issue, but, as the member has said, we have heard of some specific instances. Having said that we've heard of them does not mean that those instances are exactly as they have been described.

J. Weisgerber: Let me conclude my discussion on this point by suggesting that I believe the remedy probably lies in tightening up the time frame for responses. I don't think there is anything we can do about disagreements over where our right is impacted or impinged upon, but I do think that allowing unreasonable periods of time for response provides the climate for the kind of activity that I've just described. I'll leave it with the minister and encourage him to think about working with government agencies to tighten up the time lines.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll just respond by saying that I agree with that. I think that a very significant part of the resolution is having time lines that you have to work within and making sure that that is done.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

G. Plant: I understand that we've taken a sort of a pause from the discussion of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle, and during the course of that pause we've spent a bit of time talking about the general issue of consultation. I have a couple of questions about that. I thought it might be timely to pursue those now.

I suppose the first general comment is to try and pick up on a theme that was being pursued by my friend, my colleague from Surrey-White Rock, in relation to the application of the Crown land activities policy. I want to come at that theme from a slightly different angle but perhaps go to the same general place. Both that policy and other policies which are being developed and have been developed by government involve government, necessarily, in a process which is primarily the avoiding of unjustifiable infringement of aboriginal rights.

It seems that as a matter of policy, government has chosen to read into that general direction the requirement on the part of government to identify the existence of aboriginal rights to the extent that it can. I think the minister and I are both in agreement that it is not for his government to unilaterally purport to identify in any kind of binding way, let alone to catalogue, aboriginal rights. Nonetheless, the process of attempting to identify them for the purpose of carrying out the primary obligation of avoiding unjustifiable infringement may have some implications for government. It may create a situation where government, discharging the policy, finds itself, in effect, out there in the field identifying rights that might not, up until that point in our history, have been well-known or well identified.

I guess the perspective that I want to make sure is part of this discussion is this: we haven't talked about how we identify those rights. I think the minister will agree, at least I hope he will, that the gathering of evidence in relation to the existence of aboriginal rights involves gathering evidence that is quite often problematic, difficult to interpret and frequently open to a whole bunch of different interpretations. It's sometimes a very difficult process to come to any kind of clear reading on what the implications are of evidence that might suggest the existence of aboriginal rights.

I think the point that emerges from all of that -- and it may or may not have been the point that my friend and colleague from Surrey-White Rock was getting to -- is that it seems to me that in those circumstances government should act cautiously. That is, government really should take care that it doesn't over-interpret evidence in the field or unnecessarily find aboriginal rights on the basis of evidence that might not be terribly credible. That's sort of a long preamble, but I hope the gist of what I am saying is clear. I guess what I hope is that 

[ Page 1804 ]

the minister agrees with that general approach, which is that while there is some need here for government to do something that has to do with the identification -- the intent to identify aboriginal rights -- the government should be careful in doing that.

Hon. J. Cashore: I do agree with the general approach as described. Again, I would make the distinction that I think the identification of rights has to based on what we might describe as criteria coming out of some of the key court decisions. But I think the point is well taken: once you are out there in the field, you try to make a wise interpretation of the information that is becoming available. Quite often you are dealing with a wide range -- from actual physical evidence to hearsay -- and to be able to deal with that spectrum in a way that means that you are evenhandedly and cautiously applying that is, I think, very important.

I am not sure if this example goes right to the basis of the issue. When we look at the rather difficult situation at Nanoose Bay -- granted, it was the Heritage Conservation Act -- it is my understanding that there was a scientist, an archaeologist, who was brought in to give some identification. I think the first report of the archaeologist was that they expected that there might be up to 19 human remains. Then, as this process of moving the top three inches of the layer of the land carried on -- which is apparently consistent with some standards that are allowed in circumstances within archaeology -- I think it ended up being over 600 human remains. So even where you have a science -- which is obviously perhaps more of an art than a science -- that's a good example, I think, of the type of situation you can get into. Even if you have a scientist coming forward with information, a prediction turns out to be really very far off. So the member is absolutely right that when we are dealing with this issue of rights, it behooves us to be cautious, and at the same time to recognize that as the courts were very serious in what they said, their seriousness has to be manifested in the decisions we make.

Now, before the hon. member gets to his feet, my colleague owes me a favour. He is now going to rise and enter the debate for a very few minutes and talk about some issues related to this ministry. Who knows what might come up? I urge you to listen to his pearls of wisdom.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I thank the minister for allowing me to rise and respond. First of all, I'd like to compliment many of the members on the other side for the quality of the debate. I think we are advancing in British Columbia to a greater understanding of our roles and responsibilities with respect to protecting aboriginal rights, as poorly defined as they are.

One of the areas I have to frequently bring to the attention of the minister is the whole issue, which the member has recently spoken of in his last statement, of moving cautiously so as not to inadvertently define rights that have not been defined heretofore. When there is an inadequate amount of technical information, what happens is that the information gets developed, but it is seen as information owned by the first nation. When they see themselves owning the information, they want to know that if they share that information as to a traditional use -- it may have been some spiritual use in a place in a forest -- the right they have exercised in the past won't be abused; it will be taken seriously. This is difficult, particularly when they don't have the resources to put those rights into graphical form and share them. Once shared, then they are available to everybody and therefore open to abuse.

I think of the case of one major trail I've been told about. There are some historical trails, which both the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities make considerable use of, and there are some 1,500 archaeological sites along that trail. I've seen some of them myself, and some of them I've only been told about. But some of them can easily be removed, and there is no adequate protection unless we put management in place to protect them. Here's a case where we mutually have some interest for tourism and for understanding the past and what happened between aboriginal societies. So I can see the sensitivities there, but we have not yet developed the legal protection for those rights, once they are defined by them or by us. So, of course, we have to move carefully.

All the more reason, I think, to encourage people to enter the treaty process, where the resources of government are concentrated, and then we can appropriately define them and decide under the treaty what will get protection, and perhaps allocate the resources to give protection to those resources. So I think it is a case of coping with those bands that are not in the treaty process until such time as they can be in the treaty process. When we explain those benefits to those first nations not in the process, they come to understand better the dilemma that we have, as government, trying to do all things in a very short period of time. So when we look at the areas I am responsible for and represent, I see that there are vast numbers of bands and first nations who will actually do an awful lot of work with government, once they get the feeling that we respect those rights.

I know the members opposite are very keen to understand the wisdom that the minister suggested I have, but I do respect, as I enter this debate, the quality of the concern coming out. I know this is something we all say is beyond politics. We are always tempted to play little games with it between ourselves, but I honestly believe that during the last provincial election a greater understanding developed that we have to deal with these rights. One of the ways we are going to do this is with much more extensive consultation. We're going to do it with much more research on traditional use. That's the area that I think is perhaps more difficult -- where we have confined the activities of first nations to a smaller land base. Something happened historically, where they didn't continue to roam as widely, perhaps, as they once did. How do we then define those rights on a defined land base?

As we get better at landscape-level planning by resource ministries and look at the whole landscape and all the things that happen in that landscape, from gathering medicine to gathering traditional foods, we get better at planning the development of the forests. When I ask foresters, "Can you get so good at forest management that there's always a balance of habitat, a balance of various types of resources on the landscape?" they tell me yes. I think that's the level of management we're getting to.

I see now that the opposition no longer has any need for wisdom from me, because the person with the wisdom is back.

[5:15]

G. Plant: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. Actually, that's not true; I have 30 or 40. However, I'll see if the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs can answer them.

One of the other issues arises under the general umbrella of consultation. What I guess I mean by that umbrella is that the work being done by government to attempt to accommodate aboriginal rights during the course of land and other resource development activities is in fact the involvement of third parties in that process. We've already touched on this to some extent and I think the member for Peace River South 

[ Page 1805 ]

came close to this point earlier. It is increasingly the case, in my observation, that the actual on-the-ground work of attempting to identify the existence of potential aboriginal rights from the government's perspective is being done by the proponent or the applicant for the licence, the licence holder or the tenure holder, rather than being done by government itself. The obligation, it seems to me, to ensure that these rights are not infringed is primarily, fundamentally and entirely an obligation of government. Yet government is, in effect, delegating a big chunk of the discharge of that obligation to third parties.

It has always seemed to me that that was quite an inappropriate thing. It's inappropriate because, first of all, as the minister has rather candidly admitted, government generally doesn't have any assistance to give third parties. There's no handout; there's no handbook on how to do this stuff. And that leaves third parties, whether they're large corporations or small businesses or even individuals, in a situation where they have to embark upon a very difficult task without much in the way of resources or assistance in any practical sense.

It also seems to me to be a problematic approach, because fundamentally, it's the obligation of government, not the obligation of third parties, to ensure that aboriginal rights are not interfered with. I have, then, a general comment that it's wrong for government to seek to transfer this burden to third parties. It's wrong and ultimately dangerous in the long run. Because if there aren't any handouts, there certainly isn't any quality control that government can implement, because there are no criteria in existence, really, to measure the adequacy of the work being done. If you follow that thought, I guess you would expect to see, in a situation like this, that in fact much of the work gets redone by government. Much of the work that's been done by, or on behalf of, third parties gets redone by government, which means we have at least two sets of studies being done in a number of cases. So I think it's wrong as a matter of policy and also just plain inappropriate from the point of view of managing scarce resources to have this stuff done by third parties. I invite the minister to comment on that position.

Hon. J. Cashore: Some of the assumptions underlying what the hon. member stated are incorrect. The province of British Columbia has not delegated its obligation on this issue. The province has fulfilled, and continues to and will continue to fulfil, the province's obligation. There have been some instances -- it's wrong to characterize it as the majority -- where third parties have, for obvious and logical reasons, been asked to take part in that process, and that has been done. When the hon. member said that I had said -- I think he said "admitted" -- that there was no assistance, I was referring to the fact that there was no assistance for capacity-building in first nations communities. But there is assistance. The assistance that's on the record and that I discussed just a very few minutes ago is through the line ministries. I said that there is no brochure. We don't have a set of handouts that cover the myriad of various convoluted types of situations that might come up. But the assistance is there through the line ministries, with regard to very direct assistance between government and the parties.

G. Plant: I suppose, to follow what the minister has just said, we could split hairs with each other all day long. It certainly wasn't my intention to say that the government was intending to delegate its obligation. In fact, I think you'll find that I was pretty careful not to say that. So the minister's answer, in effect, was in response to something I hadn't said. The issue is whether the ministry or the government in any line ministry is handing out tasks that the government decides are part of the fulfilment of the obligation.

As I understood the minister's answer a minute ago, he said that the government was doing this in a handful of cases but by no means in the majority. I have to say that my experience is informed largely by my experience in looking at forest issues rather than issues in other ministries. I hope I'm not overstating it when I say that absolutely every instance of every licence application that has been brought to my attention over the last several years has in fact involved the licensee, in some way, directing, employing or hiring consultants to do the work necessary to identify potential aboriginal rights -- whether that's by hiring the band to do the heritage study, contracting with the band, hiring some expert, or doing the work with its own resources.

This isn't a question of it happening in isolated places across British Columbia. I'm sure the minister didn't mean to say that, because in my observation it's happening throughout the province -- at least in the case of forestry, and I may be wrong in generalizing beyond forestry. My guess is that ministries like the Ministry of Mines probably took the lead from the Forests ministry and did the same thing. So I just want to be sure that I have the minister correct me on that point.

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, we don't delegate our legal responsibility, and I think the hon. member recognizes that. For instance, there are circumstances where a holder of a TFL has a planning responsibility that's part of the terms and conditions of holding that TFL. In those instances, since that TFL is in a particular area where certain aboriginal interests are identified, it does fit into some aspects of that planning function. But even in that instance, the government does not abandon its legal obligation with regard to those consultations.

G. Plant: The minister's answer is helpful to me in understanding the issue. I want to ask a few more questions about consultation and to do so in the context of one particular consultation protocol, although I think the questions are general. I have portions of the land and resources referral process consultation protocol between the Wet'suwet'en and British Columbia in front of me. This is a multipart document that I think has a specific aspect for forestry operational planning and a more general referral process for a variety of land and resource activities. As I understand it, there has been in place some kind of final signed-off version of this document since about March of this year. Maybe I'll start with that.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think that's pretty close. I can't put an actual date on it, but March sounds about right to me. I wonder if the hon. member might advise us if he knows if the document he's holding is the final draft. If it's not, would he like us to get one to him?

G. Plant: The draft I'm holding is March 4, draft No. 10. I also have a document that indicates the protocol was intended to be signed on March 8, 1996, in Smithers. Whether this is the final version or not, I don't know. I don't think I need to impose on the minister's good offices for the purpose of these questions. The pages I have are more than enough for the purposes I'm concerned with here.

I don't want to make this a legal exercise, but both the general referral protocol and the forest referral protocol in this case have without-prejudice provisions in them. I'm quite certain that these without-prejudice provisions survived into the final draft, even if I'm not looking at it. I understand why 

[ Page 1806 ]

it's necessary to ensure that these consultation protocols have a limited scope of operation -- that is, you should be careful about their scope of operation. But on the other hand, these are the processes by which government intends to do what it has to do to discharge the obligation that the minister has spoken of several times in the last ten or 15 minutes as being an obligation that it most definitively does not want to delegate to anybody. It has an obligation to ensure that it conducts its operations, and grants licences to licensees who conduct their operations, in ways that do not interfere with aboriginal rights.

It seems to me that the context here is honouring legal obligations. That is a context within which, from the government's perspective, there would be an advantage in, in fact, having some colour of legal obligation attached to these documents. Yet this one that I'm looking at here, the Wet'suwet'en one, has the without-prejudice language in it, and it is perhaps among the most sophisticated of its kind. In other versions of this document the without-prejudice clauses appear constantly. I wonder if the minister could comment on why it is that the government sees that it needs to have this kind of escape language built into these processes.

Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that the main reason is to protect the treaty table, so that what happens at the treaty table is not necessarily controlled or determined by what has gone on in the consultation process.

G. Plant: I understand that objective and have no criticism of it.

Coming back to the topic, then, from a non-lawyer's perspective, if I could.... From the government's perspective, is the government happy to surround the consultation obligation with the colour of legal obligations? That is, assuming you can do that without distorting or polluting or affecting the treaty process, the government would be happy to ensure that its consultation obligations and the reciprocal obligations that are contained in these protocols are legal obligations.

[5:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: The protocols are simply an instrument to enable us to meet our legal obligations. There's a point I think that the hon. member is making here. I'm not quite sure that I understand the point, but from my perspective the reason we have these protocols is to enable us to manage a situation until such time as we have the certainty of a treaty.

G. Plant: Let me take a general observation, which could be applied to a number of contexts, and apply it to one specifically. In the case of the Ministry of Forests policy on protection of aboriginal rights, there are at various stages in that policy time lines attached to steps which are to be taken. We're already heard the member for Peace River South today talk about why he thinks time lines are important. It would seem to me to be enormously desirable if the government and a particular first nation, in embarking upon a consultation process and signing a protocol, could make promises to each other that would be legally binding about timetables they would adhere to. I don't see those promises being legally binding in the protocols that have been made today. I suggest that's a good thing and that the government should do this. There's the concrete case. I invite the minister to comment.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think these documents are to facilitate achieving successful results from the consultation. I do not agree that if these were to become legally binding documents it would serve the purpose the hon. member says it would. I think we just have to agree to disagree on this point. What we have now is a document that you might say is relationship-binding, or binding in a small-p political sense, in order to make it work. There's a kind of need on behalf of the parties to that process to make it work. I fail to see how adding that further dimension, which could then be subject to litigation and all sorts of things, would really help the process. I myself think it would make it more complex and complicated.

G. Plant: I'll accept the minister's invitation in this case to agree to disagree. I suppose my parting shot is that if there's going to be litigation, there's going to be litigation -- and wouldn't it be nice from the province's perspective to be involved in litigation in circumstances where its legal position were clear? What it is now in many of these cases is completely unclear, because there is an absence of certainty with respect to the legal principles that apply to the criteria of when adequate consultation has taken place.

I acknowledge that the courts are making some progress in this regard, but it seems to me that it's an expensive way to learn lessons. If in fact the parties to one of these processes are happy with the commitments they've made to each other, I don't see why they wouldn't be happy to make those commitments a little stronger than simply small-p political commitments. I also see the force in the other point of view, and I'm not going to argue the point any further.

There is another issue, though, that is of concern to me in relation to this particular protocol, the Wet'suwet'en protocol, but I think it probably applies elsewhere. It starts with the observation that there is a really wide range of types of referrals that are encompassed by this protocol -- literally dozens of different types of tenures and permits are going to be subject to this protocol. From my reading of it, it seems that the referral processes are going to apply throughout a territory that is essentially defined by one party to the process, the Wet'suwet'en, as being the territory within which they wish to have these processes apply. In this particular case, that of the Wet'suwet'en, we know from the fact that the issue has been litigated that they don't have aboriginal rights in a large portion of the territory that they claim to have aboriginal rights in. We know that, because the issue has been litigated, and the court, in deciding the matter, basically cut their territory, roughly speaking, in half. Yet, as I look at the protocol, it seems to me that on the map the area within which the protocol will apply is the larger area. I may be wrong about that, in which case I invite the minister to correct my understanding, and that's the end of the matter. But if I'm right, then the question arises: why is the government committing to undertake these processes in such a large area, an area beyond the area of its legal obligations?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll have to get an answer for the hon. member on that.

G. Plant: It may be that this also is a question that the minister needs to have a look at, but I guess what I want to do now is generalize -- that is, take it beyond the specific case of the Wet'suwet'en to other cases where these protocols are being negotiated or discussed, or have been signed, and ask the question about what criteria, if any, are being used to determine the area within which these protocols operate. I suspect that in most cases it is simply the government agreeing to whatever is presented by the aboriginal group. To be fair to the minister, very few other cases will be like this one, 

[ Page 1807 ]

because we don't have the boundaries in other cases. Nonetheless, there is still the question: how do you decide the area within which these processes will operate?

Hon. J. Cashore: It is my understanding that the courts have said that aboriginal rights are site-specific; therefore I would take from that that, when it comes to the actual consultation, there is a requirement that we must be advised of the specifics of that site, with regard to how it would fit into various criteria that have been gleaned from various court cases.

G. Plant: That may be so. But I think the spectre that the minister is creating is this: there may be a large area that is notionally encompassed by a protocol, but in fact actual consultation will only need to take place in particular places within that large area where the rights exist, so that there's some kind of check mechanism down the road. I still wonder why it is that the large area might be accepted at the outset. My question still concerns the criteria by which government makes a decision to determine the area of these protocols, other than simply taking whatever it is the aboriginal group wants and saying: "Fine, we'll consult with you as and when needed anywhere within this territory."

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the discussion about traditional territory, I think it's quite right that when it's at the stage of an assertion on the part of one of the parties, it's an simply an assertion. We don't either agree or disagree with it; it's a statement that has been made. But when it comes to the identification of a specific right that they state is being infringed, it's at that point where the first nation is required to be able to identify some kind of explanation as to why, in their view, this site was a traditional site for a traditional activity. There has to be some way for them to back it up; just saying it is not enough. It can't be based on a vision, as at Gustafsen Lake. There has to be some way of describing their basis for making that claim.

G. Plant: That really encompasses the questions that I had on the issue of consultation. I think the minister may hear from me later on other subjects, but I understand that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson has a question or two.

K. Krueger: I want to ask a couple of questions around the issue of gaming as it pertains to aboriginal people and aboriginal reserves. I will quote the 1994-95 Ministry of Government Services annual report, which refers to the gaming policy project on page 16. The preamble says: "The gaming policy project has the responsibility of developing and recommending to government a comprehensive policy on the regulation and conduct of charitable gaming in B.C., including the role of the first nations. A part of this project is the evaluation of potential gaming expansions." I would like to know whether any gaming expansions are presently contemplated on aboriginal reserves. What is the status of that project -- the gaming policy project -- with regard to aboriginal gaming?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would refer the hon. member to the Minister of Finance, who has received that area of responsibility within our government from the Minister of Government Services and is the minister in cabinet responsible for answering those questions.

K. Krueger: Certainly I'm aware that that is the ministry that oversees gaming at this time, but there are some specific proposals around the province from aboriginal people. I thought it fitting to ask this minister in these estimates whether he could tell us about any specific proposals coming forward from bands under his jurisdiction.

Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs would not be in a position to answer that question, because this ministry does not see any such proposals, knows of no such proposals and is not in a position to comment on this question at all, because we simply do not have any information.

K. Krueger: I accept that.

Has the minister any statistics or information concerning the rate of gaming addiction problems in the aboriginal population in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

K. Krueger: Given that, the answer to the next question probably seems obvious: is the minister aware of any programs currently in place to assist people on first nations reserves who may have a gambling addiction?

Hon. J. Cashore: Again, that would be in the purview of the Department of Indian Affairs; or, if there were related issues, that might relate to other ministries. But for our ministry, the answer is no.

K. Krueger: That sums it up pretty concisely from the point of view of my portfolio as a critic. I'll ask the member for Matsqui to resume direction of debate.

[5:45]

G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I'm not trying to horn in on my colleague from Matsqui. He had anticipated that I would rise at this point.

I would like to briefly discuss with the minister the situation at Adams Lake and, hopefully, its resolution in the future. As we all know, the Adams Lake situation is a difficult and complex issue. It involves federal, provincial and regional governments, as well as the Indian band and the non-native community at Adams Lake. I certainly don't have any simple answers to what is obviously a complex issue. I've always argued that the issue at Adams Lake should be addressed on a non-partisan basis, because I believe that's the only basis on which it will be concluded successfully. My hope is that we can see in the weeks, months and years ahead progress on at least some of the short-term and long-term elements involved in the Adams Lake issue. On the short-term side, I hope to see some improvements in the ferry service at Adams Lake. I'm optimistic, based on my discussions with the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways, that some improvements will be realized in the relatively near future.

What I'd like to do briefly is address some of the longer-term or broader elements entangled in the Adams Lake issue. Again, my intent here is not to probe in a way that will prove unproductive to the resolution of these issues; rather, hopefully, it will inform me at least in a general way to how the government intends to proceed towards the resolution of the situation at Adams Lake. Could the minister advise, first of all, whether his ministry has developed a process whereby issues will be identified and the untangling of some of these difficult issues will be undertaken?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we have staff working on that with Highways, which has the lead role. I just want to say that I 

[ Page 1808 ]

very much appreciate the approach that the hon. member is taking. I do pledge that I will, through my offices and through my assistant deputy minister, Randy Brant, who has just come in, continue to seek a very open-door relationship with the hon. member, because I believe that his local knowledge is invaluable in helping to understand the issue from various perspectives in the region.

I've just been advised by Mr. Brant that the government of Canada will have officials meeting with the band this coming Thursday. I look upon that as very good news, because I've not hesitated in the past to say how disappointed I've been with the non-involvement of the government of Canada. I've also just been advised that the Ministry of Highways will be meeting with the band this month. We will keep this hon. member apprised of these developments as we learn more about them.

G. Abbott: I am very much pleased by the response of the hon. minister, and I think it pretty much satisfies the second part of my questioning, which was on the time frame involved. The minister has outlined that very clearly, and I appreciate that. I think it would be unrealistic for me to think that this minister or indeed any other minister could go a whole lot further in terms of setting down a time frame for resolution of this. It's an issue that didn't occur overnight; it's one that's been developing over years and that involves a host of complexities. I won't pretend to be so naïve as to think it can be resolved overnight. I commend the minister on his approach, and I look forward to working with the minister on this issue in the days ahead. I will turn the floor now to the hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I advise the minister that I do intend to return to the Nisga'a treaty just before we approach the dinner hour, though, and with the member for Delta South present in the chamber, I thought that we might deal briefly with the issue of the Tsatsu Shores development and the Tsawwassen Indian band. The minister will know that there's a great deal of tension that continues to exist. The member for Delta South can probably advise the minister as well as anyone. I have his correspondence from November 27, 1995, when he wrote to the minister's federal counterpart and explained the genuine feeling of concern that exists, and existed then, in the Tsawwassen area, with respect to the matter of the environmental study that was taking place -- or had taken place, or had not taken place, as the case may be.

The real issue -- and I think the minister will hear from the member for Delta South -- relates to the fact that this really is the interaction, the interrelationship between this band, which I think genuinely wants to get on with development, with finding the means to become self-sufficient.... But on the other hand, there is the realization that anything it does is going to necessarily impact on the people of Tsawwassen, the people of the municipality there, and that there's got to be a mechanism. There's got to be a realization of the parties involved that they are not an island unto themselves, that what they do is going to impact upon their neighbour. It's the case with respect to the sewage treatment facilities -- or the absence of sewage treatment facilities -- the availability of water and other infrastructure and services. The impression one is left with, watching this unfold from outside that jurisdiction, is of two entities that are beating their heads against one another, and in the end no one is going to win.

I have to say, having reviewed the most recent correspondence from the federal minister, from of July of this year, that there doesn't seem to be a realization on the part of the federal people of the difficulties that exist, of the divisiveness that is resulting from what has taken place with respect to this development. Simply abdicating responsibility, as I think the federal people are trying to do, hasn't been particularly helpful.

I don't know to what extent this minister and his offices are involved in those ongoing discussions, but we are -- and I know the member for Delta South is -- interested to know, and interested to know what the minister's impression is of that issue, given that it is, I think, an indication of the difficulties that we can look forward to -- lamentably -- in the future.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm going to move that the committee rise, but first I want to say a few things. During my phone call with the federal minister a week ago today, I raised this issue with him, and he advised me that the federal government had agreed to seek mediation with regard to this dispute. I don't have an update on that or know what's happened since then, but I took it as a positive sign. It's possible that the member for Delta South might know something about it. Actually, I apologize to the member. I should have mentioned that to him.

I agree with the comments of the member with regard to the responsibility of the federal government. Assuming that we'll be canvassing this further, could I also assume that when we come back after the break I could finish my response? I have a few more things that I'd like to add. With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

I. Chong: I was expecting the minister to make some opening remarks, but seeing that he hasn't, I'll start.

[ Page 1809 ]

I recognize that this is yet another responsibility thrust on him, and I do hope he's going to find this to be a productive exchange, given the revelations of the past week. We intend to explore all those programs that have been initiated to create expansion and growth in the small business sector, with a view to evaluating their success and perhaps to offering insight into improvements.

In order to improve the small business sector climate in British Columbia, we have first to acknowledge its importance to our economy and then truly respond to its needs. My own practical experience in dealing with small businesses, in addition to owning my own, suggests strongly that government is not listening to small business concerns, and that support, if any, has been minimal. Therefore, to encourage much-needed expansion and job creation strategies, we have to show that we are, indeed, on the side of small business by offering action and much less rhetoric. To that end, I shall be taking this opportunity to highlight where there may be areas for improvement.

As for tourism in British Columbia and especially here in Victoria, we have much to be thankful for. The previous minister did a fine job and was well respected in his position. We have noticed here in Victoria that the aftermath of the 1994 Commonwealth Games is finally being realized; however, we must continue to acknowledge that part of the success of tourism here in Victoria and throughout the province is due to our low Canadian dollar. It is a contributing factor to the increase in tourism dollars, and those tides could quickly change should there be a significant shift upwards. In looking at budget projections, we should not be overly optimistic as we cannot base the future growth of tourism simply on the assumption that the Canadian dollar will remain devalued.

We will be asking particular questions, one of which is: how does this ministry intend to keep tourist dollars here in British Columbia? While it is always desirable to have a decrease in budgets -- and this ministry, I note, has one -- we have to ascertain whether or not those decreases jeopardize programs that have been implemented and that essentially support the mandate of this ministry.

The cultural, recreation, heritage and sports division of this ministry also needs assurances of continued support. I have been speaking to those who are involved in those areas in my local community. I know it's not possible to adequately measure the return on investment from the dollars that we spend in that area, but we do have to recognize that those benefits are gained by way of an enhanced quality of life for all of us in British Columbia.

Recognizing the potential for growth in our film industry, we shall be directing some attention in that area, perhaps later on in the estimates -- perhaps this evening. Those in small business, in tourism and in cultural industries want to be heard, and I want this ministry to be clear on its intentions that it will be listening to these people in these industries. Certainly this is a ministry that spends, and I do acknowledge that, but it is the multiplier effect that I know we will be looking at, which is the important component in terms of revenue generation.

By setting up a special operating agency, this government has finally recognized that tourism marketing should not be a function of government. Members of the tourism industry can finally have some say in their destiny. Once again, we must listen to those tourism operators who have asked that this authority be allowed the freedom to make its own decisions, to market in their own way and, finally, to accept responsibility for their choices and the results without government intervention.

My colleague the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum will be elaborating more on this special operating agency, devoting his attention and time to this matter. There are very many specific issues and areas that my colleagues and I wish to look for answers to. I will conclude my remarks at this time and say that if the minister has any opening remarks, I will allow him to make those before I start with my questions.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm always curious about that relationship, because what I hear most often from business is, "government should get out of the way and things would be perfect," yet it appears the member is making an argument -- which I'm not disputing -- that government spending is one of the catalysts or keys to developing the small business and tourism sector, in this case, and that is refreshing to hear.

I have just a couple of remarks. I think everybody is aware of some of the issues that sometimes are beyond our control and have an impact on business, and certainly federal monetary policy could be that. I think our government has been pretty consistent with respect to that question. High interest rates might suit the Bank of Canada and some parts of Canada, but they don't suit British Columbia, particularly, when it comes to that as one of the catalysts. But I was quite pleased to see some of the reporting on the weekend that indicated that of all of the provinces, again B.C. is experiencing the most dynamic economy. I think that in July, of 19,000 jobs created in Canada, 13,000 were here in British Columbia. That's just a remarkable statistic.

Of course, it's always nice to see stories about individuals who left Ontario and came to British Columbia to find work and who are feeling pretty bullish, and to listen to or read the remarks of people employed in the tourism sector -- in this case, the Hyatt Regency hotel -- who talk about a 10 percent increase in guests, and that's pretty much year-round. There are also new jobs as the result of the Vancouver International Airport expansion. Again, I suppose the comment we might make there is that we gave the airport authority an ability to tax people through an airport improvement fee, and that financed the capital costs of that expansion, which is paying off handsomely.

But I think we have both in terms of our targets.... I believe, for example, we're targeting an additional $500 million in tourism revenue in this fiscal year.

By the way, I'm remiss. I should have started off by paying some tribute to Bill Barlee, and I sincerely regret, for a lot of reasons that, he's no longer a member of this House. But there's no question that he was certainly a dynamic Minister of Tourism and that he was recognized as such by that sector, which employs 220,000 people in approximately 12,000 related businesses throughout the province. So we are targeting an increase in jobs, an increase in revenue.

On the film side, as a result of some of the activities we've engaged in, we're seeing, again, a fairly substantive increase in the dollar value of the major movie and television commercial business in British Columbia. Again, the government is involved in that with Bridge Studios, which has some of the best, if not the best, sound stage available, which is fully booked. We're looking at expansion. So you can see, then, government spending being a bit of catalyst here, and I always hear that opposite, you know.

[2:45]

[ Page 1810 ]

With respect generally to small business, I don't know how the member could say that we're not listening. After all, our recent budget agreed that there would be no new taxes for small businesses. We've seen a tax reduction for small businesses in this budget. We've reduced the small business corporate income tax to 9 percent, the lowest rate since 1987. There is an overall tax freeze. We've developed a streamlined business registration system, a one-stop business project, where small businesses can deal with issues like WCB, business number accounts from Revenue Canada for payroll deductions, corporate income tax, GST, etc., and declaration of proprietorship. They can apply for registration as a vendor to receive a provincial sales tax number. That seems to me a worthwhile program.

We've developed five training programs. I know I was involved on that in my former portfolio. A new youth business program was launched, and 809 young entrepreneurs have participated so far. There is better access to information, a new database and a web site. The Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre, a small business database, provides a range of information on small businesses through the Internet or through a fax-back service, with an average of 40,000 hits -- gee, I don't know what "hits" are -- per month. Business statistics have been developed, working in partnership with B.C. Stats and Western Economic Diversification. We are upgrading small business stats available for B.C. On advocacy, the ministry has provided assistance on specific issues for small business. As for access to the minister, they've had open access through the former minister and now this minister.

Small business accessing.... Of course, one of the big problems for small business is the access to capital. We've got the active capital program encouraging private sector investment in B.C. small businesses. This program registered 26 new venture capital corporations in '95-96, providing $30 million of new investments to 60 small businesses. We have the employee share ownership program: 18 new plans, involving 1,200 employees during '95-96, applied for 25 investments worth $3 million. The WOF, Working Opportunity Fund, facilitated the raising of $30 million for investment in small and medium-sized businesses. Since 1992, WOF has invested over $40 million in 21 companies. They plan to invest at least $10 million more in the remainder of 1996. This represents in excess of 64 percent of the capital of WOF.

Clearly, any way you slice it, small business is doing quite well in this province. Looking at the various sectors around that, particularly on the tourism side -- tourism growth generally; the adventure tourism that B.C. Ferries is now engaged in on the central coast; $500 million more in film business here in British Columbia this year over last year -- I think it's a pretty outstanding record. I would venture to say that there's probably not a province in Canada that would prefer to have their record versus our own. I think we're doing not too badly. Nothing's perfect, but it never is in this life. I don't know how anybody could say anything negative at this point. It would be shocking. It would surprise me for people to be negative about such good performance.

I. Chong: I have to say to the hon. minister that yes, I do concur with some of his remarks, especially the one about his predecessor, Mr. Barlee. I do believe, as I said in my opening remarks, that he was an ambassador for this particular role. I do take note of what you've said about some items, such as the film industry. I will be concentrating on that area later in the estimates period.

I did mention in my opening remarks that I do recognize that this is the ministry that does spend and needs to spend. I didn't question that in light of other ministries, because this is the one that generates revenue as opposed to others that provide service. This ministry has to generate those revenues that can be used in the other ministries.

I want to remark on a number of things that the minister did say regarding no new taxes for businesses. If I could turn back the clock to when we were doing interim supply, as you may recall, I did mention the fact that the no new taxes was only for the two-year period for incorporated businesses. I thought that somehow left out those who were not incorporated. There is still an imbalance in equity in that area and, in fairness, it would be the Ministry of Finance that we would have to discuss that with. But there are a lot of unincorporated businesses who, for reasons of their own, do not choose to incorporate. I have not seen that there has been a tax break for them. The tax breaks offered for incorporated businesses are sometimes not necessarily as beneficial to them, given that in the first two years of businesses there are losses that are carried forward.

As for the lower corporate tax, I do agree with you on the 10 percent being reduced to 9 percent. But, as I did say in the debate on interim supply as well, that was increased in 1992, which this government had been a part of.

You did mention the venture capital corporation and the Working Opportunity Fund. I have knowledge in that area, and I will get into detail on that somewhat further on.

I note that this minister -- like the previous minister, by looking at past Hansards -- enjoys taking credit for this ministry because it has had a history of some good works. It's a shame to burst your bubble, shall we say, because I will have to bring some disappointment to you as we get through our spending estimates. I do want to say that it looks like we will have a more enjoyable exchange, and I will now continue with the questions for you.

For the benefit of the minister and the staff, I am going to actually be questioning certain specific dollar amounts. I trust you'll understand that, because of my financial background, I need to put those in perspective before I can embark on a few other questions.

First of all, in the administration and support services, I've noticed a decrease in salary and benefits of $260,000. I wonder whether that was a specific job that allowed that reduction or a person or perhaps a program that allowed for that elimination.

Hon. D. Miller: It's general efficiency savings.

But just dealing with the question posed by the member with respect to unincorporated businesses and the application of the tax reduction and the tax holiday for new small business, I didn't actually mention small business and the tax holiday for new small businesses. Just for the member's information, some questions have been raised with respect to the business tax holiday -- and, in fact, why are sole proprietorships not eligible? The member is probably aware there are three categories of business: sole proprietorship, partnership or corporation. Corporations are taxed as separate entities, but sole proprietorships and partnerships do not pay tax. The income flows to the proprietor or the partners, who pay tax individually. Of course, they would benefit because there is a three-year freeze on new taxation for individuals. That's how I understand those things work.

I. Chong: Thank you to the minister for that clarification. I am glad to hear that you have found efficiency savings in administration support services.

[ Page 1811 ]

Back to the subject of the tax holiday -- and again I recognize that perhaps this is not the ministry -- because this ministry was perhaps the advocate of looking for a tax holiday, I just want to be clear that I do recognize that individuals will get a tax freeze of 1 percent, but corporations are getting their B.C. tax frozen, which is a 9 percent difference. Given that sole proprietorships and partnerships can employ up to 20 or 30 people as well and be considered a small business, but for reasons of their own they have decided not to incorporate, they in fact do suffer a larger tax burden than had they chosen to incorporate. I just want to offer that out the minister, because I would like, perhaps at a future time, to discuss with him or the Minister of Finance that a more even process and fairer tax method can be applied. Those who don't incorporate, in fact, are going to be yielding a higher proportion of the tax base.

Just to let you know -- this does get complicated with taxes -- with the corporations not paying a provincial tax, it allows them to keep their moneys in retained profits, which allows them to distribute it back to the shareholders and get a dividend tax credit. There in fact could be a loophole that you've offered to incorporated businesses and have neglected for those in proprietorships or unincorporated businesses. But I'll leave that for a moment.

Again in administration support services, I notice a decrease of about $187,000 to the grants and contributions. I wonder what was incurred or budgeted for in 1995-96 that is no longer relevant or required in 1996-97. Specifically, I wonder whether there was a particular item that was no longer required as a contribution or grant.

Hon. D. Miller: I gather it's a slight reduction in service or support for some heritage infrastructure projects that the ministry was supporting.

I. Chong: The other item I am looking at is in the recoveries. I notice that there was a $15,000 recovery -- a minor amount, but $15,000 nonetheless. I wonder if the minister can tell me where this is from. I know there wasn't one last year, and I'm wondering if this is a small amount that will occur this year and perhaps be something that we'll be looking for in the future years as to expanding a larger amount of recovery.

Hon. D. Miller: There is no specific program; it's just our belief that we can recover that amount of money in a variety of ways.

I. Chong: Are there projections as to the recovery beyond 1996-97 for this amount? Does it look like it will go upwards -- double, triple or quadruple?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I have not looked at any long-term projections.

I. Chong: The next area I want to look at in terms of dollar amounts is community and regional development. I notice a $490,000 decrease to the salaries and benefits, and again I must ask the minister whether or not this is due to elimination of jobs or programs. That is a substantial amount. Although efficiencies and savings can be had, I am looking to see if a program has been eliminated.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, it's really just a general efficiency in reduction of expenditures with respect to that service -- government agents, regional economic development officers and the like.

I. Chong: I want to confirm that it is in this area that the cost of administration of the Working Opportunity Fund is included. My question to the minister is: why would the administration of the Working Opportunity Fund be included in your community and regional development when clearly it has its own fund and operations?

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is that we have the responsibility for the Working Opportunity Fund, and therefore it does require some monitoring.

I. Chong: I do recognize that the Working Opportunity Fund requires some monitoring. Perhaps, then, you can tell me what amount is budgeted for that kind of a monitoring service.

Hon. D. Miller: The work is done by the equity capital group. While the amount allocated with respect to WOF is not stripped out of that, that work is done by the same people that do the equity capital group.

I. Chong: I'm trying to get clarification from the minister. I guess, then, you're not able to establish an amount to budget for those costs. For example, if the Working Opportunity Fund were to quadruple, would you not have to, by the same token, increase your administration costs for monitoring costs? There must be some sort of base amount that you must start at and at which you would increase should you require extra services to administer under this fund.

Hon. D. Miller: It doesn't automatically follow that there would be an increase in administrative costs if the fund increased in size. It has been increasing in size. But what I'm saying is that we don't strip that out specifically within the general budget item. It may be possible. I'll certainly ask my ministry if it's possible to do that and, if it is, I'll forward the information to the member.

I. Chong: The next item, again in community and regional development, is in the area of public servant travel. I notice there is about $1.058 million allocated. In looking at the line items that I received, $727,000 of this was allocated for economic development in the area of public servant travel. I was wondering whether you can confirm whether this has to do with the 24 regional economic development officers. Is that what this travel is for?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Miller: Primarily.

I. Chong: Given that there are 24 of these regional economic development officers, this sum equates to roughly $30,000 per year per officer's travel. I see your staff shaking their heads. I made that assumption because that's what I had concluded it to be. If this was the case, I would want an idea of where the 24 were located, because it wouldn't necessarily require each of the officers to have that same amount of travel if they were located in the lower mainland.

Hon. D. Miller: It's the total travel budget for the entire operation. Given that we have a large province, some of that travel, no doubt, was done by the regional managers coming to places like Victoria and Vancouver, for example. Some of the regions, my own included, are very big. While we've attempted to disperse staff throughout the region, there are still immense distances which often require overnight accom-

[ Page 1812 ]

modation and those kinds of things. So it's the entire travel budget for the unit.

I. Chong: I have to confirm that it wasn't just for the 24 officers, that it was for the program itself, which is understandable.

Before I move on to the next area, can you confirm that there are, in fact, still only 60 government agent offices since the last reporting?

Hon. D. Miller: There are 61 sites, apparently.

I. Chong: As I mentioned earlier, this is going to be a lot of dollars and cents before I get into the philosophical and ideological questioning.

In the community and regional development, $3,128,000 was budgeted for professional services. In particular, of that $3 million, I see $852,000 for small businesses and equity and $2,258,000 for economic development. Would the minister elaborate more fully as to what professional services are contracted out in those two specific areas? I'm curious whether these are, in fact, positions that could have been held by employees versus contracting-out?

Hon. D. Miller: Under community and regional development, there are a number of programs: the aboriginal programs, regional economic services, government agent support services, and other commitments to small business initiatives -- that line item really handles all of that. As well, there may be studies done or commissioned by regional economic development officers with respect to a proposal that would come to the attention of those people -- in other words, a scoping-out to see whether or not it would be something we would be interested in developing further.

I. Chong: Of the amount for information systems, operating versus capital, of $932,000, I noticed $605,000 for the 60 government offices. As I was going through some of the documentation, I was wondering whether or not that was for a technological change. I saw somewhere -- and I'm not sure where, but I think it was last year's Hansard -- that they were upgrading the personal computers, replacing the stand-alone computers. I was wondering whether or not this is an annual allocation you have to make, or just a one-time item?

Hon. D. Miller: It's not for the technological upgrade. It's for the normal communications material supplied by those offices.

I. Chong: The next item is, again, grants and contributions, and it may be you have the same answer as previously. Of the $4,604,000 in the community and regional development, there is $291,000 to small business equity and $4,313,000 to economic development. What is the nature of those contributions?

Hon. D. Miller: Just to give you a sense.... I won't read every single one of these, but here are some: the youth business and entrepreneurship training -- I talked about some of these in a general way earlier -- $400,000; employee share ownership program, another $2.25 million; businesswomen's advocate; cooperative development; business information centre program; land use planning initiatives; provincial initiatives; regional planning and implementation funding; community economic development program funding -- we actually fund a fair number of the community-based economic development organizations; aboriginal economic development programs; program development services; and those kinds of expenditures.

I. Chong: That's very helpful. I couldn't find, for example, where the businesswomen's advocate was, so I'm glad to see it is in this particular area.

My question, still relating to this area of grants and contributions, is: what caused the reduction for '96-97? I do notice there is a decrease from the previous year. I'm wondering whether one program has now concluded, or whether you're no longer funding a particular program that might have occurred last year.

Hon. D. Miller: I understand that there were some expenditures relative to the Clayoquot Sound initiative last year that are not required this year.

I. Chong: I direct the minister, or his staff, to the area of recoveries: $472,000, of which $379,000 was from, I believe, economic development. I was wondering whether the minister can clarify further what that kind of recovery would be?

Hon. D. Miller: That's reimbursement from the federal government on the.... I did talk about the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre earlier, and there is a recovery through the feds on that.

I. Chong: That more or less concludes some of the dollar things I was looking at. I acknowledge I've given your staff a lot of looking back and forth. I was going through line items, but I haven't gone through every single line item -- just to assure you.

Now I would like to more or less focus on some of the more, I guess, ideological issues. Through the Chair, I'd like to ask the minister if he could give us an idea of what the role and the purpose of this minister's office is in the area of small business. What programs do you have that specifically help, for example, 19-to-29-year-old youths in getting back to work -- things such as that?

Hon. D. Miller: We're a busy little ministry, Mr. Chairman. I'll just run through some of them, and I did talk about some of these at various earlier stages: youth business and entrepreneurship training; employee share ownership program; the equity capital program; the businesswomen's advocate; the program development of special initiatives; the B.C. Creative Arts Show; cooperative development; business information centres; Chamber Link; one-stop business registration, which I talked about; the Canada-British Columbia Business Service Centre, which I talked about; regional planning and implementation of the B.C. young entrepreneur conferences; business training for entrepreneurs; home-based business workshops; and women-in-business workshops and events.

I. Chong: Thank you, hon. Chair, I thought that was it, but I just had to be sure. I'm making sure you know your job.

I just want to pick up on one of those items you mentioned, the one-stop shop, which is the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre, which I know has operated since 1994 in Vancouver. Can the minister confirm whether that is the only centre that's been open, or whether there has been any expansion or intended expansions that were going to be developed throughout the province?

[ Page 1813 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No. There is a study that will look at this to see how that might be expanded on a regional basis. I did talk about some of the elements of that: that businesses can, at the centre, register with WCB; the business number accounts; declaration of proprietorship; registration as a vendor -- those kinds of things. So we're looking at that to see whether or not that can be extended.

I. Chong: Last year there was a program within your ministry, or your predecessor's ministry: $1.5 million was for a summer employment program, which was geared to tourism, I believe. I'd like to just confirm whether that is still intact.

Hon. D. Miller: It's still there, with the same dollars and wage subsidy, yes.

I. Chong: Last year the previous Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture took credit for job growth at a 4 percent rate in 1994 -- because, as he was speaking, he was referring to the year before. However, since 1991 the rate of job growth has been cut in half, and it has gone from the fastest growth rate of any jurisdiction in North America to one that hovers just above the Canadian average. This decline has been in spite of massive offshore real estate investment attracted by federal immigration policies, the over 30 percent decline in Canadian currency and the increase of commodity prices by as much as 40 percent in the past five years.

Despite the government's priming of the economic pump, the job growth and economic growth rates still declined to where they were some five years ago, and the number of people who are on social assistance, unemployed or who are discouraged workers continues at levels near that. Since the ministry took credit for the growth rate, will they now take credit for the declining rate of job growth in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: I have sent some staff to get another clipping which I think will refute the member's statements. Had the member been in during my estimates under the Ministry of Employment and Investment, I think I was rather modest in saying that when the good news comes, all governments tend to want to say: "It's because we're here." To some degree, there's some of that, and I think governments should have the right to do it. If you look at the opposite side of the coin, it's certainly very true that when the economy is underperforming, opposition parties tend to blame every single problem on the government, and I'd suggest that if anybody wants to get into it in a philosophical vein, it's the old what-goes-around-comes-around kind of thing.

[3:15]

Perhaps this story will give some advice to all members on their futures in politics. I remember that I ran into former Premier Bill Vander Zalm in Prince Rupert one summer, and of course anybody who comes from Prince Rupert understands that summer doesn't necessarily mean it's sunny. It can be, and it's a spectacular place, rain or shine, and I love it. But Mr. Vander Zalm and his entourage kind of sauntered down to the waterfront one afternoon at Seafest in early June, and the sun was shining. "Look at that," he said, "I brought the sunshine." And I said: "Bill, I'll tell you what -- I'll give you some advice. If you want to take credit for the sunshine, you've got to take responsibility for the rain."

So let's not kid ourselves. The B.C. economy has performed quite well -- very well, in fact. I know we play this game of politics, and why shouldn't a government stand up and say that under their tenure the economy has done well. After all, the opposition members are running around saying that if the government gets elected, the economy is going to go to hell in a handbasket. So we all play the game. The member is surely not wanting to get into that debate here, because those of us who have played the game for a while actually like it.

Just to conclude, and I hope to get the clipping fairly quickly here, I read an article in the Sun Friday or Saturday that talks about the terrific resurgence of the economy. Going back and looking at those statistical benchmarks, the fact is that our unemployment rate when Canada's was 10 was still around 8.6. We now see that ours has gone down, and that in places like Vancouver it's 7.5. Quite frankly, I don't think that's exceptional, if you want my own opinion, but it's better than others. When 19,000 jobs were created in July in Canada -- in Canada -- and 13,000 of them were created here in B.C., a government is surely entitled to stand up and say, even just a tiny bit, that it may have been because we're in office.

We don't claim absolute credit, but surely it's a legitimate statement that under this government the economy has performed very well. We're seeing the reports coming in daily from the forecasters, the CIBC and the others. There's another one out today about the best credit rating in Canada being maintained.

Here we go: "The growth projections are remarkable. In fact....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: No. I don't know why people keep giving me the same article; it's the wrong article. There are two articles. There we go, right down at the end here.

An Hon. Member: It probably says: "B.C. Leader in Bankruptcy."

Hon. D. Miller: No, no.

These are important statistics that I think all members should read, if they didn't get a chance to read them. Look at that headline on page A1 of the Vancouver Sun: "B.C.'s Jobless Rate Drops to a Six-Year Low." Outstanding! "B.C.'s economy created 16,000 more jobs in July as the province's unemployment rate fell to a six-year low of 8.1 percent from 8.7 percent in June."

An Hon. Member: What about B.C.'s being highest in bankruptcies?

Hon. D. Miller: There are probably other ministers of small business, tourism and culture in other provinces that would pay to be the minister here in British Columbia. They'd pay! They'd trade; I'll bet you I could trade four of them for one to come here.

I mean, employment across Canada increased by just 19,000 in July. That means that the vast majority of new jobs created in this country in the last month were created here in British Columbia. Surely that's a fact we should all be celebrating. Surely we should try not to be too negative about things, because the investment climate, the kind of feeling that we project, is important for that continued economic growth.

[ Page 1814 ]

R. Neufeld: I can hardly contain myself when the minister stands up and talks about how great the economy is, quoting clips from the newspapers. I have one here from the Province, July 18, 1996, and it says: "B.C.'s Leader in Bankruptcies."

"B.C. leads the other Canadian provinces in bankruptcy growth so far this year, new figures released by the federal government show. In reporting its May statistics, Industry Canada's office of the superintendent of bankruptcies said that provincial bankruptcies have increased 34.2 percent. That compares with an average of 26.5 percent across the country. The second highest jump took place in Quebec, where bankruptcies have increased 29 percent."

So I do agree. I don't blame him for standing up and taking credit for all the jobs that have been created. The one thing that I've always been suspicious about in the number of jobs that have been created is: how many of those are real jobs that last? Our yearly jobs are jobs that are real jobs that people need to raise families on, to be able to operate in society as it is today, to buy houses and cars and put children through university and those kinds of things. So I'm highly suspicious of some of the numbers, and not because I'm trying to diminish the role of the ministry; heaven forbid, I wouldn't try to do that. But I am highly suspicious, regardless of what government comes through with those kinds of numbers.

It is interesting to see that at the same time the ministry talks about creating the most jobs in Canada, we're also the leader in bankruptcies. The two work hand in hand. There are some impediments to small business and industry as a whole operating in British Columbia successfully. Obviously the bankruptcies that have taken place in British Columbia are an indication of that also.

Hon. D. Miller: The member's right about one area, and that's the consumer. Again, I don't have any sort of ready answer about why there's been a fairly large increase in consumer bankruptcies. But I want to make a couple of points about the bankruptcy statistics. One is that they need to be looked at over a long haul. In other words, you'd be two months over a month; quite often you draw the wrong conclusions. There have been some abnormally high bankruptcies in the construction business. Quite frankly, I think there are some reasons for that. I don't want to get into that at length, but it's easy to get into if the member appreciates what I'm saying. So you're going to get -- particularly in that sector -- inflated numbers.

Second, if you look at what happens in a dynamic economy -- and really, I guess, this is a lesson for the marketplace.... People talk about the business climate. They say people will take risks if they think the opportunities are there, and that's true. Small businesses particularly, which have grown more rapidly than large -- and that's an international trend in terms of the shifting dynamics of any economy -- are increasing. But that means there are more people out there taking risks. What it means in the marketplace, of course, is that you take risks, and not everybody makes it. The reason, I suspect, that B.C. is higher is because more people are out there taking those risks. By default, you're going to get a higher number of those who don't make it. In 1995 there were over 43,000 new business startups. The bankruptcy figures really pale in comparison to the level of economic activity that is taking place throughout the province. I don't know that you could read anything more into it than that.

Small businesses are handicapped quite often because people don't really have good business training. We're trying to cover that in the training programs I talked about. They fail because they don't have deep enough pockets in their startup period, they fail to anticipate some costs that come along and they can't last until they get businesses on a profitable basis. We've tried to assist access to capital with the Working Opportunity Fund and other programs.

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't keep an eye on these and look at them, along with a lot of other statistical indicators in terms of what's happening in our economy, but there's nothing in here that suggests in any way that we should be overly concerned about these numbers.

I. Chong: I knew we were going to digress a little. I do have some information about bankruptcies, but I had that later on in my estimates questioning. I will bring that up again at some point.

I want to speak to the minister regarding the statistics that he was giving us regarding the jobless rate being down. Admittedly the jobless rate is down, but job growth is the question. The job growth percentage is not the same as the jobless rate. You might think it's a matter of semantics, but it is not. They are two different things. That's why I had asked why the job growth rate, which was much higher in 1991, has now dropped to 4 percent. I was alluding to that to the minister.

I did want to say, in regard to his comment about the new business startups, that certainly there are a lot of new businesses starting up as a result of various downsizings. In all the statistics ever produced, they fail to show the flip side -- and I recognize that as well -- of how many jobs are lost. That doesn't always fall into the jobless rate immediately. It's very common that a business shutting down will lose 30 jobs, but that doesn't get into the same comparative time period as do the new startups. Two or three of those former employees may go out and start their own businesses, and suddenly they're in the statistics as job startups, and the job loss side has been totally forgotten. It's something that I think we have to take note of and should always be cognizant of as well when we're speaking of new jobs created and new business startups.

The other thing I wanted to mention that he talked about was consumer bankruptcies. As I say, I will get into that a little later on. But the reasons for consumer bankruptcies.... Perhaps I have more experience and exposure to that. People think that they are the average person, the average householder, and that is sometimes true. But it's also the average householder who is the home-based business person or the small proprietor or partnership, the unincorporated person who has put everything at risk: they have put their home at risk; they have put their assets on the line. Finally, when things don't go their way, they declare bankruptcy. They should not be viewed in a separate category. Some of those consumer bankruptcies are in fact business bankruptcies. It's just because of the entity they have been formed under that they fail, again, to meet the statistics.

I wanted to make those remarks before I asked my next question. Last year the minister advised that the ministry held seven young entrepreneurs conferences, serving about 700 people, so roughly 100 people per conference attended these workshops. I also wanted to mention that the ministry funded 55 aboriginal economic development projects in 1994. Given those statistics, I would like to know how much money you are planning to spend on aboriginal community projects this year, if that is in addition to the $500,000 that was spent last year, and whether or not these funds that you committed will be repaid as part of the land claims settlement.

[ Page 1815 ]

Hon. D. Miller: It's roughly in the $500,000 range, and no, it's not our intention at all to try to recover program costs in land claims. The two are disassociated, in my view.

With respect to unemployment rates, perhaps I could advise the member that I had a discussion with the deputy mayor of Taipei some time ago now. I was looking at some information about the city, and I noticed that the unemployment rate was something like 1.5 percent. When I talked to him and his entourage, I asked them how they did that, because here the best we can do is not very good: it's 8 or 9 percent. He said: "It all depends on how you count."

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad I've been able to entertain the members opposite. The point I was trying to make is that in some countries, people who are considered to be working would not be in our system of statistical measurement. It seems to me that maybe there's a whole variety of things around those statistics that could be looked at. How do you measure a nation's wealth? How do you measure their status relative to others? It's interesting to note the new kind of accounting, or the new ways of counting that the UN is now using. They're now including quality-of-life types of issues....

[3:30]

F. Gingell: You listened to my budget response.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I always pay attention to the member for Delta South, because I think he tries to be very informative. My point is generally with respect to our society, which has become arguably far more complex in the very short period that I've been in the workforce. We have not tried to look at some of those questions in terms of how we generate statistics and how our economy is generally performing. I think there are some other arguments about redistribution of wealth. Those are always pretty challenging, but that's what we do. We maintain a social safety net, and that's essentially the redistribution of wealth. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's a good thing. It's what distinguishes our society from others throughout the world where they don't have those kinds of approaches. In fact, one does not have to go too far. You know, take a look at your average American inner city and tell me if you think something's working. I guess you come away with the conclusion that it's not, even though the unemployment statistics in the U.S. are remarkably low.

So there are other ways in which you look in a broader context at the health of a nation, the state of its economy and the state of its people. On balance, Canada does very well. I think we're number one in the world in that respect, and certainly British Columbia does stand out as the leader currently within Canada. I suspect that we'll continue in that leadership position, because of our strategic position with respect to the Pacific Rim. B.C.'s a very desirable place, and it's got an efficient government. All those things are contributing to the very fine economic performance we're now enjoying here in British Columbia.

I. Chong: It must be something to do with this ministry, because the minister always seem to be enjoying....

Interjection.

I. Chong: It must be either the water or the ministry, because it sounds like a speech from the previous minister I was reading in last year's Hansard. Last year the minister noted that 136 trainees on income assistance were employed after completing the tourism employment and training program. Are those people still employed and working full-time year-round? Are their wages above $12 an hour? Or have they been back and forth on welfare since having been employed?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sorry, I don't have the specifics relative to the numbers that the member cited. I do know that a lot of our attempts to take a different approach to trying to give people the opportunities to get off social assistance have paid off. It's fairly early yet, because we're really only in the second year of the B.C. Benefits program and the Youth Works program. But we have started a number of initiatives -- and again, I keep coming back to my previous experiences as the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour -- working with the private sector. With the chambers of commerce we signed quite a number of agreements whereby they would be the host agency and find jobs for people who are currently on social assistance.

There was a training subsidy that went with each individual. In fact, the major one that the member may have heard of here on Vancouver Island was an agreement we signed with a consortium of high-tech companies under the auspices of the Victoria Chamber of Commerce. The consortium was known as VIATEC. I'll use that to illustrate, because it was quite a nice program. Essentially, they agreed to find full-time employment for around 300 -- I think it was 300-plus -- people who are currently on social assistance.

In exchange for that the individual businesses that hired them received a one-time training allowance. They had to have a training plan which they had to submit to government, and they had to commit to job retention. In other words, they couldn't come in and use that training allowance as, in effect, a wage subsidy and, once they're through with the people, kick them out. There had to be a genuine training plan and retention. I think in that program we had about a 70 or 75 percent retention, so that means of the 300-plus -- I think maybe it was 350 -- who went in, the end result is that a significant number were permanently off the social assistance rolls and permanently employed in full-time jobs. I think some of the numbers in terms of the wage rates were around the $12 range.

I only use that to illustrate the point. I'm sure we've got some kind of breakdown or progress report that really is properly under the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. I know that I've been terribly out of line in talking about it at this length.

I. Chong: Well, I brought this particular item up because, as I say, I was going through last year's estimates, and I did note that there were these 136 trainees. Quoting from Hansard, "The enhanced community tourism employment and training program gave 136 trainees from the income assistance area the skills they needed to secure tourism-related employment. Four months after completing this program, there was a 70 percent success rate" -- which is certainly something to be proud of. The reason I asked this question of the minister was to really determine whether or not this kind of program has a program evaluation, whether there is some follow-up. That was one of the high points that was mentioned last year -- that program evaluations were done. So I use this as the example I pulled out of Hansard from last year to determine whether there was some sort of follow-up on this particular program.

[ Page 1816 ]

Hon. D. Miller: It is properly under Education, Skills and Training, but yes, Destinations is 250 clients from provincial assistance. The regional breakdown: 150 in Victoria -- 150 in Victoria? How did we do that? -- 100 in Vancouver; 25 in Nanaimo; and 25 in Gibsons. They received training and they got a training credit, as I indicated. Retention was about 90 percent, youth participation about 50 percent, single parents about 30 percent, with an average wage in excess of $8.

But Mr. Chairman, since it's another ministry, perhaps we could move on.

I. Chong: Then I certainly applaud the ministry for having kept records on this particular program. It does show that you are doing some program evaluation and tracking what you've offered.

The other item I'd like to move on to is that in 1993 this ministry had a commitment -- a White Paper -- to small business. This discussion paper asked entrepreneurs across the province what they wanted. As I understand it, there were five major items they wanted, being the need for more training, the need to learn how to use technology, the need for greater access to capital, the need for more business information and the need to address the issue of regulatory and paper burden.

I would like to know how many of the five major concerns identified in your White Paper are still being supported or are still being considered?

Hon. D. Miller: We've taken care of every issue that was raised as a result of that. I think we've covered that extensively. I did talk about no new taxes, reduced taxes for new small business, streamlined registration, training, blah, blah, blah. We commissioned a survey of 8,000 small businesses. We published the results in Commitment to Small Business: A Discussion Paper, and yes, we've acted on those concerns.

I. Chong: I understand that a number of these have been acted on, but my question was to clarify which of them were still being supported -- for example, the need for greater access to capital. In that area, the only thing I can see that being is the Working Opportunity Fund, which I will get into later. I want to clarify whether or not you had expanded that support for small businesses that were looking for greater access to capital.

There's the idea, as well, of the need to learn how to use technology. One of the items, I understand, was a pilot program to use the Internet. Is that still being supported, or is that no longer in place? My question to the minister is not so much whether you acted on these. I do recognize that they have been acted on; I want to know whether they still have purpose and are continuing. As I understand it, small businesses want these things to still be supported by this ministry.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate that small business continues to seek government assistance in terms of programs and expenditures of taxpayers' money to support these programs. I was delighted to earlier run through a list of those where we are, on an ongoing basis, continuing to support the small business community.

I. Chong: I would like to ask the minister whether they've done any measurements of these particular actions, whether or not they were effective, whether evaluation reports have in fact been done on the initiatives that have been implemented in the past year and, if these have been done, whether I can have access to those.

Hon. D. Miller: All programs are subject to ongoing evaluation, particularly at budget time, when we constantly look at the taxpayers' money we're spending to ensure that we're getting the desired result. So, yes, there always is evaluation of these programs on an ongoing basis.

I. Chong: I'm not trying to be simplistic as to whether the evaluation is a function of the ministry. I'm trying to determine whether an evaluation is done to measure the success of the initiatives -- in particular, if outcome targets have in fact been in place, whether or not you've met those and what you've done as a result of your evaluation. That is what I'm looking for, as opposed to an evaluation that says: "Yes, this program is great; people are accessing it."

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we do all that.

I. Chong: Then I'm hoping that I'm able to have copies of those if I request them of the ministry.

Hon. D. Miller: Whatever we've got that can be released.

I. Chong: Thank you.

The next item I'd like to move on to is that last year the minister told us about a Prince George micro-lending circle pilot project for aboriginal entrepreneurs. My question, then, is: has this project in Prince George worked? Again, it goes to program evaluation. How many jobs were created because of it, what are the wages and the full-time status of these jobs, how has the repayment of these loans been so far and has this program in fact been expanded?

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have that information here, but we will try to get it. If we get it before the estimates are concluded, I'll be glad to pass it over to the member. If not, we'll forward any information we do have subsequent to the estimates.

I. Chong: Again, the reason I ask that question is that, as I said, it goes to program evaluation. As a supplemental to that, the minister has said that the programs in his ministry are evaluated on a regular basis. I was wondering whether or not it is done on a six-month basis or an annual basis.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, with respect to the operation of the ministry, there's no set, predetermined schedule for program evaluation. Programs, by their own natures, are different. The need to look at the results is different across programs. What I'm really saying in a general way is that all programs are subject to that kind of evaluation. The rigour of budget-making forces that requirement on government.

I. Chong: I certainly can agree that the process of the budget does require evaluation, but it doesn't necessarily require, I guess, a critique or analysis of it as opposed to just determining whether the moneys were spent and whether the programs were accessed. I think we perhaps have a difference in opinion as to what evaluations are there, but I'll leave that for a moment.

I want to touch on some of the items that were mentioned last year when the ministry's future plans were discussed. There was a commitment to double the number of small business workshops and seminars in several regions. I would like to know whether the minister has done that or whether that is in the process of occurring for the current year. What 

[ Page 1817 ]

were the results of the workshops held in the past two years? Did the doubling of the workshops in fact double the results?

Hon. D. Miller: We have been very active, as indicated, Mr. Chairman, in terms of those initiatives. Very briefly, we had 88 home-based business workshops, 30 women-in-business workshops, 11 young entrepreneurs conferences, 69 specialized-training-for-entrepreneurs workshops, 38 Internet training initiatives and a small business development program for aboriginal women. Really, our ability to sustain those programs rests entirely with the budget that we are able to obtain on an annual basis.

I appreciate the fact that we are spending money and that we are meeting needs identified by that sector of the economy. I don't disagree with that. Our ability to sustain those is obviously linked directly to the budget process. Whether those will be maintained over the long haul, I certainly have not -- as the minister who is, really, standing in the stead of the minister who is going through a very courageous struggle at the moment -- gotten into that in a broader developmental sense in terms of looking at the ministry, as we must look at every ministry.

[3:45]

I am satisfied that there has been a lot of programming out there that I think has met the needs of the client groups who have been looking for if. If we can continue that, obviously we will.

I. Chong: I raised those questions because of the commitment from your predecessor. He specifically said that they would double the number of workshops and seminars in several regions. From what I recall in looking at last year's notes, there were 79 workshops, for example, for home-based business, and you just now mentioned 88 workshops for home-based business, so obviously the targets of doubling weren't met. This is what I refer to when I'm looking at program evaluation. If targets are set, if they are not being obtained, I guess we need to know why, and whether in fact that impacts on the results that you would have ordinarily have budgeted for. So I am looking for that.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I think there are others besides myself who can testify that my predecessor was fond of numbers.

I. Chong: Yes, we got him to say that in Hansard, so now we have something to look at, and we're trying to follow up on those.

An Hon. Member: Continue to cling to it.

I. Chong: We're going to have to.

Given that your predecessor was fond of numbers, I'm sure he's obviously fond of promises. I have another one I'd like you to answer, if you can. The other commitment he made for small businesses was: "We will implement the community investment pilot project, which gives British Columbians the opportunity to raise capital and to expand local businesses." I'm wondering if the minister can advise whether that has been implemented and what that is all about.

Hon. D. Miller: I guess he forgot to say, Mr. Chairman, that it was looked at and there was a decision not to proceed.

I. Chong: That's an easy answer. The other item that I found interesting was that last year during the estimates your predecessor had said: "A committee will be meeting over the next few months to determine the key recommendations on how regulatory reform can assist British Columbia's competitiveness." So again, I'm asking whether the minister can tell me whether that committee did meet -- because it said it would be meeting -- and what the outcome was.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, apparently it did meet. It's also a topic that I have a great deal of interest in, but I have not got to the promise stage yet. I may get there soon. One of the developments was the streamlined business registration that I referred to earlier.

I. Chong: Just to take a step back, the streamlining of business operations.... I think you're referring to the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre. That was in 1994. This was in 1995 when he said a committee "will be meeting," so I think it's referring to something else. If you'd like to clarify.... And if in fact you have met and there is a report, I would like to know whether I can get a copy of that.

Hon. D. Miller: Sorry for the confusion. Really, I should have said the one-stop business project. We talked about it earlier. It was announced this year. I can read it: "Our ministry has introduced the one-stop business project. The first initiative of this project is called one-stop business registration." We'll streamline small business registration, as well as cut the paperwork burden. All new and existing businesses provincewide can complete a number of registrations at one personal computer in one location. I ran through all of these subheadings previously.

I. Chong: Just for clarification, then, this one-stop business shopping is different from the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre, and this one-stop.... I see staff shaking their heads, so I'll take that as yes. The one-stop business shop is throughout the province?

Hon. D. Miller: There are six pilots expected this summer. Two are up and running now. Yes, we're looking at expanding them. Obviously, it can be done electronically.

I. Chong: The next area I'd like to focus on is the Working Opportunity Fund, WOF. From what I gather, since 1992 it has raised some $75 million, and to the end of 1994 I understand only $9.4 million of the funds raised has been invested in B.C. businesses. I suspect that perhaps WOF does not lend out those moneys as easily, perhaps, as a bank; otherwise people would be accessing it. I would like to know, firstly, the more up-to-date amounts as to what has been raised since 1992 -- as I say, I only have 1995 figures -- and how many businesses actually have been able to access this particular fund.

Hon. D. Miller: Hopefully, I can get a descriptive page with respect to the businesses that have been supported by the Working Opportunity Fund. I think one of the things that was clear to me in my discussions with officials is the need for follow-up. In other words, you may have initial investment, but typically these are enterprises that require support over time.

I talked about one of the classic reasons why new small business ventures fail: it is the inability of people to foresee financial difficulties, or not having deep enough pockets to sustain a new business through that startup period until it starts to make some return on that investment. Industry experience has shown us that for each $1 of equity capital, an 

[ Page 1818 ]

additional $2.50 is required in follow-up investments to fully realize the potential of the initial investment.

So using that as a kind of a rule of thumb, the fund will need to invest over $62 million in follow-up investments over the next few years in the those operations where they currently have invested. That's been part of their planning. They've understood that right from the beginning.

Just in terms of the investments, just looking at the payroll, some of the statistical indicators has this worked.... It's invested over $40 million in 21 companies since 1992. I indicated earlier that it plans to invest at least $10 million more in the remainder of '96. What has that produced? Well, looking at the payroll of companies that WOF has invested in, we see that in 1994 the wages produced by those companies were $16 million; in 1995 that had almost tripled to $35 million. Taxes paid in '94 were $5.8 million; in '95, $12.1 million.

So you can see that from an employment and tax point of view, it has returned.... Wages have increased 114 percent and taxes have increased 109 percent. Current total employment is about 1,100. Jobs created are 152, and jobs saved are 124. Economic impacts of the seven companies held from January '93 to December '94 include: average job growth, 75 percent; average increase in sales, 105 percent; export revenues, $60 million growth in '94 to a projected $116 million for '96. The per capita equity raised by province to date -- kind of an interesting example -- in British Columbia is $31.39, which is the lowest of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Quebec, for example, is a startling $210.

Really, it does appear -- and again, going back to the briefing I had on the question -- that B.C.'s fund is working well. I think it is true to say that the federal government looked at the rules of operation and how our fund was established and incorporated some of those in their own rules around working opportunity funds. I hope that gives the member enough to go on for now.

I. Chong: I appreciate all the statistics. That wasn't particularly what I was looking for. I do recognize that the investment would be yielding jobs and tax incentives and breaks, etc.

What I was looking at was the fund itself. As I said, I only have information from last year. At that point, $75 million had been raised in the Working Opportunity Fund. I'm not aware what the total is now. Given last year's ratio of $75 million, I think $9 million having been disbursed is a rather poor measure of the fund. I was wondering how that has increased over this year. As I understand it, the Working Opportunity Fund is to provide access to businesses that fall into that criterion. I am wondering where this money is going, if not for B.C. businesses.

Hon. D. Miller: The fund is following the scheduled investments that it committed to do. I did talk about the $40 million and 21 B.C. companies. I talked about the wage levels and the taxes payable that have increased dramatically, the jobs created and the strategy with respect to that follow-up investment in some of these companies to ensure that they get on their feet. I don't know what else I can advise the member. The rules are there; they are set out. The fund is performing, I think, very, very well in terms of money that it raises and invests in British Columbia companies.

I. Chong: I guess my question is still being misinterpreted. More succinctly, how much has been raised to date, and how much has been loaned out to date? As I say, I don't have those statistics. I only have last year's, and I was trying to get an idea.

Hon. D. Miller: If there is any information that I can't give out here, certainly we'll take the member's questions and make sure that she gets that information. I did indicate earlier, I think, that WOF plans to invest at least $10 million more in the remainder of 1996. Again, there are rules with respect to the operation of the fund, and there's a strategy in terms of...the term is "patient money." I did say that WOF would need to invest over $62 million in follow-up investments over the next few years, so they do have an investment strategy. That strategy has worked in terms of new British Columbia businesses, and some that they've saved. If there are any other more specific, detailed questions that we're not giving the answers to, then certainly we'll try.

I. Chong: I'll try it one more time. I'm not trying to trap the minister or anything like that. I just would like to know... As I say, I only know at this point that $75 million has been raised to date. That's as of 1995. A year has passed. Has another $20 million been raised? Are we at $100 million, or are we at $105 million? You've mentioned that $62.5 million is what the commitment is. Is, therefore, the fund required only to loan out a percentage of what it raises to date? If that's the case, if you had those ratios, then perhaps I can calculate it backwards.

Hon. D. Miller: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the number that the member is looking for with respect to what they've raised. But again, I want to go back and point to the investment strategy as being a very key question here. It's not a question of raising X number of dollars and just booting it out the door; it's making strategic investments in companies that you know you're going have to get back to at some future point.

Okay, the fund raised $30 million in '95-96, of which $8.8 million was invested.

[4:00]

I. Chong: That does help shed a little bit more light on this. It just seems to be growing at a larger pace than it has been disbursed at. I do understand the need to make wise investments, but at the same time we need to find out what kind of a cushion we're looking for, because these funds are being retained. My further question on the Working Opportunity Fund, to the minister, is whether any percentage of the Working Opportunity Fund has gone to finance government debt, such as B.C. bonds.

Hon. D. Miller: Gee, not as far as I know. I don't think it would be allowed, Mr. Chairman.

I. Chong: I just wanted to ensure.... There was a question raised, I believe, at some time concerning whether in fact that's where the funds had gone -- to create a good investment return for those funds which had not been allocated out to businesses. Can the minister tell me, then, what percentage has gone into overhead costs as a proportion of the total investments?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't. I don't have that, but I think the normal rules would apply. The fund is monitored and must comply with certain government provisions, both federal and provincial.

A list of companies that have been invested in since '93 gives one an appreciation of the nature and the kinds of 

[ Page 1819 ]

investments that the fund has looked at: Canadian Oil Filter Recovery Corp., recycling oil filters; Pro Carry Systems International, manufactures light, comfortable security equipment; Stone Electronics, manufactures underwater scuba wireless voice communications; Photon Systems Corp., designs, manufactures and installs fibre-optic communication systems; and the list goes on and on. Most of these are companies in the high-tech field. Some of the more recent companies are: NCompass Labs, Internet-related software developers; Avcorp, aerospace component manufacturers; and Xantrex, research and development of biotechology.

So you can see the kinds of companies that the fund has put some money into, and those are the very kinds of companies that we need to nurture in terms of the kinds of economic changes that are taking place.

I. Chong: I do appreciate that, because I did have information last year as to some of those funds, as you mentioned: Canadian Oil Filter, Pro Carry Systems, Stone Electronics and such, and that totalled the $9.9 million, as I understand it, and you have now disbursed up to $40 million. I was looking to see the other kinds of businesses, what amounts and the sums. If you have a list, I'll obtain it from your ministry, if that's possible.

In reviewing last year's Hansard, I understand there was a submission from your predecessor to cabinet on January 22, 1995, that dealt with a number of proposals to assist small business. I'm sure you are aware of that, as your predecessors have brought that to you. There were four programs listed: implementation of a provincewide new entrepreneur assistance program, implementation of a small business loan guarantee program outside the Vancouver and capital regional districts, implementation of a provincewide on-line business information access program, and enhancement of the delivery of small business training.

I understand that none of those were approved and none were followed through on. I'd like to ask the minister why these ideas were not approved at that time, and whether he has perhaps introduced programs similar to some of these.

Hon. D. Miller: I do believe that we have delivered. I think we've been talking extensively this afternoon about most of those, and I did say that the one program, the capital program, was not carried forward.

I. Chong: One of the four programs suggested by your predecessor to cabinet was implementation of a small business loan guarantee program, for example. I don't believe I've heard where that has been carried through. If it has, then I'd like to know in what shape or form.

Hon. D. Miller: I believe I said that we didn't proceed with that.

I. Chong: I did say that as well; I recognize from last year's Hansard that it wasn't proceeded with, and that obviously the minister had felt that these were important programs when he brought them forward to cabinet. I'm wondering whether the ministry has any plans to revisit some of these things, because they're still ideas which the small business sector is looking at.

Hon. D. Miller: No.

I. Chong: The next item I'd like to speak on is the Canada-B.C. Business Service Centre in Vancouver. I understand that it has had some success. Some have said that it's difficult to access it because it is so busy. I'd like to know whether this is still cost-shared fifty-fifty, or whether that has changed.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

I. Chong: Is there a long-range plan for that? Is this a commitment that will be carried on for the next five years? Does the minister have any idea whether there is a shorter-term commitment for this?

Hon. D. Miller: There is a two-year renewal that has more than a year to go, and obviously we'll have to look at that with respect to our discussions with the federal government.

I. Chong: Given that it's a two-year renewal, if the federal counterpart decides not to fund its 50 percent share, is there a commitment by this ministry to continue with this program?

Hon. D. Miller: That's future policy. I really can't.... In fact, I wouldn't want to in the context of.... I'm not trying to assume what the federal government may or may not do. We have to determine that at the time, obviously.

I. Chong: The next item I want to elaborate on is the home-based business workshops. Last year, as I mentioned, there were 79 home-based business workshops. In order to determine and do a program evaluation of this.... When asked about the outcomes or targets that were expected, the minister at that time stated: "We are in the middle of a survey right now that will probably be done relatively soon, I assume." I'm wondering whether that survey has in fact been completed, and whether I can get a copy of that.

Hon. D. Miller: The former minister made a number of references, but we don't have any sense of a survey. We're delivering the program, and obviously we hope to continue. We canvassed that earlier.

I. Chong: From looking at last year's information, I gathered that after the various workshops were done, perhaps a survey had been sent out to the participants, and perhaps that is what he meant by "being in the middle of a survey right now." That's what I was trying to get access to, if it was done. Now I have to assume that perhaps it wasn't, or that it has fallen by the wayside.

The other part of this question is that your predecessor had mentioned it was the responsibility of this ministry to watch indicators such as bankruptcies very closely, which I'd like to get back to. I recognize that you track new businesses that have incorporated, and we have discussed the fact that we are not tracking unincorporated businesses. Last year the minister said that a key indicator of whether his programs worked or not was the bankruptcy rate. He took credit for the number of bankruptcies being down, and this year the bankruptcies are up. I know you may dispute that, so I'd like to know which programs you feel failed and have created this rise in bankruptcies.

Hon. D. Miller: I guess it's not appropriate to call last year's estimates process a program, but I think we've canvassed this fully.

I. Chong: I don't think it has been canvassed fully, because part of the responsibility of this ministry -- as the 

[ Page 1820 ]

minister said last year -- is to look at indicators such as bankruptcies. I would have to assume he was wanting to monitor bankruptcies to see what areas were failing. We know one area which fails predominantly is the restaurant industry. I know the minister had a number of recent articles about the wonderful environment and business climate we are in. I myself have probably eight or nine articles, all dated in 1996, from the Province and the Monday section of the Vancouver Sun. Everyone is saying how bankruptcies have increased substantially here in British Columbia. Given that, I was hoping that part of one of your ministry's indicators -- bankruptcies being one of them -- was what you were doing in that area to monitor what kind of industries are needing help more than others.

Hon. D. Miller: Is the member aware of what the bankruptcies are as a percentage of existing businesses and whether that has changed? I don't think it has, really.

I. Chong: No, I'm not aware of those things; that's why I'm looking, it seems, at your predecessor. We certainly have someone to keep referring to. He must have had a little black box of statistics that he kept and unfortunately didn't pass on. I'm curious to find out what he knew.

I'd like to focus on another area that pertains to small business, and that has to do with the corporate capital tax. I know this is an area where we perhaps have philosophical differences, but we nonetheless have to recognize that the corporation capital tax does place a limit on the expansion of things such as hotels and office space in Vancouver, for example. If we have no opportunity for those wishing to expand and build, because of the corporation capital tax we will find ourselves in some shortage. We will find our hotels not expanding, at a time when they should, to encourage tourist dollars here. My question to the minister is: as far as he is aware, has the corporate capital tax restrained investment in new tourism capital projects in Vancouver?

Hon. D. Miller: I know there are 8,000 hotel rooms in the construction stage, so I guess it has not deterred some investors. Again, it's not under my portfolio. I'm not here to debate the corporate capital tax. I'm happy to debate the corporate capital tax. I love debating the corporate capital tax, especially with Liberals, but not here.

I leave with one simple question: if we lost at this particular juncture -- is it $300 million; what did we take in on that? -- where would it come from? Who else would we tax? Ordinary working people? I don't know.

I. Chong: You should have thought about that.

Hon. D. Miller: I thought we went through that battle already.

P. Reitsma: Harcourt was going to let it go at the end of the mandate. Harcourt said he would eliminate it three years ago.

Hon. D. Miller: The former Premier made some commitments. Anybody who has ever been involved in finances knows that financial issues are dealt with in the harsh light of financial reality. Surely even the Liberals, if they ever get to be government, will understand that. In the meantime, I can only advise them that that is true, whether you run a small business or a big business or a government. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Surely we're not going to debate the corporate capital tax again here.

I. Chong: No, I don't intend to debate the corporate capital tax. But I do want to find out.... As this ministry's mandate is to promote small businesses, the corporate capital tax is one of those factors which, in fact, does create a disincentive for some small businesses to expand. That is why I bring it up in these particular estimates. I don't expect that you are going to have the answer, other than whether this ministry is committed to working with the Ministry of Finance, for example, to look at ways to phase it out over time.

[4:15]

I do recognize that it was a commitment made by the former Premier. When it was first introduced, as I recall from the readings that I had gone through, it was meant to be phased out after the budget was balanced. It supposedly was balanced, but now, it's not balanced. That's another story as well. In any event, it was meant to be phased out in the event that the books were balanced, which was last year as we hear it told.

I'm wondering what kind of commitment this ministry would have with the Minister of Finance to work on some program or idea to phase out the corporate capital tax. I'm not talking about financial institutions; I'm talking non-financial, on which you had imposed this enhanced corporate capital tax in your term of office. That is what I'm looking for, because it is a hindrance to expansion for small businesses.

Hon. D. Miller: I really have to say that the former minister did a very good job. We have a 1 percent reduction in the small business tax rate; we have a tax-free holiday for certain new small businesses to start up. That's not bad. The only advice I could give to the member at this stage is that the corporate capital tax is projected to bring in $440 million in '96-97. It's neither under my ministry nor under the Ministry of Employment and Investment; it's under the Ministry of Finance estimates. My suggestion -- no, my wish, my desire -- is that the Liberals continue to champion, with all the zeal they have, the elimination of the corporate capital tax.

I. Chong: You may get your wish. And you may be surprised, because, as I say, if you check back on your previous minister and your Premier, there was a commitment from them. Obviously you must have had some plan in mind so that you wouldn't require these funds, so we have to challenge and question....

Hon. D. Miller: I think we just had an election.

I. Chong: I think your former Premier wasn't able to live up to the commitment that he made, because it was supposed to be eliminated in 1996.

I do have some additional questions for you. However, my colleague here would like to ask some questions before he returns to the big House, and he has asked that he be allowed to ask his questions at this time. So I will allow him to do that.

R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that the ministry administers the B.C. 21 community grants. Can the minister advise whether the review committee to administer that program is, in fact, in place?

Hon. D. Miller: Not at this point.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister advise when he anticipates that that committee will be in place and operating?

Hon. D. Miller: Soon.

[ Page 1821 ]

R. Thorpe: In the throne speech, we heard the leader of the government talk about the spirit of partnership. Does the minister anticipate that this new committee will consist only of government members? Or, in fact, will it be reflective of the membership of the total House?

Hon. D. Miller: I've not considered that. Sorry, was the member asking me if I'm going to appoint a committee representative of the entire House?

R. Thorpe: I understand that these funds, which are administered by this ministry, are for all communities and individuals throughout the province. My question is: in the spirit of partnership, will the minister consider ensuring that this committee is representative of the House when reviewing the applications from all British Columbians for the disbursement of the funds throughout British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

R. Thorpe: Will the ministry advise -- and I'd like a bit more specific an answer than "soon" -- when the applicants that are pending will be advised? Can we get a firm date? People want to know so that they can plan their lives and their organizations. Can we get a firm date when people will hear yes or no to their applications?

Hon. D. Miller: I indicated that we'll be dealing with the issue soon.

R. Thorpe: Changing subjects, it's my understanding that the ministry has made some funding commitments to a Mascot Gold Mines Ltd. restoration project in Hedley. Can the ministry confirm that, please?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm just trying to put this together. I gather that through the heritage infrastructure program, which we discussed earlier, there were some commitments to that project.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister quantify that amount of money, please?

Hon. D. Miller: With all the paper, we don't have the answer. We'll try and get it.

R. Thorpe: While you're trying to get that, I might as well give you a list of a series of questions, then we can get all the answers later -- in the evening, before we adjourn, hopefully.

So we're going to find out how much has been spent to date; we going to find out how much is committed for the fiscal year we're currently in; and then we'll find out what the grand total of the whole project would be.

I would also like to know if this forms part of a development plan on this site, or where it all fits in. Could I also be advised of who the champion -- for lack of a better word -- is of this project, and what kind of measurement criteria have been established to monitor the moneys that are being spent?

Hon. D. Miller: We certainly try to get answers to questions that are asked. I can never guarantee it absolutely, but we do our best. Just recalling that thing now, I think I've seen a poster -- a magnificent poster that MLAs should have, if they don't. Maybe I should re-send it to....

R. Neufeld: The other minister used to hand them out. What happened to you?

Hon. D. Miller: What happened? I'm a mere shadow of the former minister.

R. Thorpe: Just a few questions on the '94-95 annual report, if I could. On page 2 it notes that the government operates...it said 60, but you now have 61 government agent offices, as you said earlier. Could the minister advise how the agents are appointed?

Hon. D. Miller: I think, with one glaring omission, it's a public service job -- I think the only omission ever, in the history of government agents, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the former Premiers, Bill Bennett, who appointed his brother-in-law to that job. I'm not commenting on that; I'm just saying that that's the only instance I've ever heard of where that was a political appointment as opposed to a public service appointment.

R. Thorpe: Then the minister will confirm that these appointments are now totally removed from the political spectrum?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: You just raised an example.

Hon. D. Miller: I was talking about an example back in the early or mid-eighties. There's never been a suggestion raised, as far as I know, that these are in the political realm. If the member has some information that they are.... This government has not changed any policy; I think that's been the policy for a considerable number of years.

R. Thorpe: No, I don't have any information, minister. I was responding to your comments. I just wanted to make sure that....

Hon. D. Miller: Why are you asking the question?

R. Thorpe: Well, we ask lots of questions, and....

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, member.

R. Thorpe: Page 20 notes -- hon. Chair, through you to the minister -- that there were 840 direct business inquiries. Does the ministry track the conversion rates of those inquiries to actual business taking place?

Hon. D. Miller: No, it would be impossible.

The point I was trying to make with respect to any particular line of questioning -- which in the last series went something like, "Can the minister confirm that these positions are public service, that they're not political?" and I referred to the one example that I could recall from memory, and then the member said, "Will you confirm that they've been removed from the political process?" -- was whether there was some other information that the member had that caused him to think that they've generally been political. That's really all I was trying to get at. Generally, when you stand up and pursue a line of questioning which suggests that politics has played a hand in the appointments, you kind of think that somebody's looking for something. So that's really the only reason I, Mr. Chairman, from my seat said: "Why are you asking the questions?" It presumably suggests something or leads to something, and I don't know what it suggests or where it leads to -- obviously nowhere.

[ Page 1822 ]

R. Thorpe: Did the minister answer the question with respect to the 840 inquiries, and is the answer that you do not track them? Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: No. In fact, unless I misinterpreted the member's original question, he said there were 840 inquiries, I think, to government agents.

R. Thorpe: No. I referred to page 20 of your annual report, which I believe mentions that there were 840.... I changed subjects, minister; I'm going through my questions on the annual report.

On the bottom of page 20, it says that the Thompson-Okanagan region funded 17 business information centres and handled 840 direct business inquiries. My question is: what is the conversion rate of those inquiries?

Hon. D. Miller: Those are funding for the economic development commissions, which we canvassed earlier. They're not government offices; they are chambers of commerce, sometimes municipalities and the like. With respect to trying to correlate the calls and do a bunch of work to see whether or not they produced anything, I said no; my own sense is that it would involve an incredible amount of work in terms of staff time, etc., to try to get that. There should be a natural follow-up of some kind or another by the people employed in those various jobs as economic development officers. In fact, I think there is. There's a regular association around the province. My own part-time economic development officer in the Bella Coola Valley -- the central coast regional district -- has just won the award as economic development officer of the year for outstanding work in the Bella Coola Valley. So, no.

I. Chong: I had some questions, as well, leading up to the government agents. In particular, I recall seeing that this was where the one-stop shopping idea was mentioned, and it was mentioned in relation to the government agents area. As I understand, this ministry was pursuing having a one-stop shopping centre with 24-hour access which could be used with debit cards. This was considered to be one of the ways of enhancing services to small businesses, and the construction of these kiosks for one-stop shopping was less than the cost of opening a new government agent office. My question to the minister is: has the government considered transferring government agent duties to local municipalities, regional districts and other electoral area representatives?

[4:30]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: We have not looked at transferring. My last experience.... When there was a staff reduction in the office in my home community, they went crazy on me and municipal council attacked me vehemently. But it is coordinated on a provincial database and provides a number of services, which we're not thinking about disposing of. I think there's always a legitimate question about how we fund our own regional economic development system. We have REDOs, as they call them, around the province. We've got government agents. We fund the chambers of commerce. We fund municipalities. We fund regional districts. Are people employed doing the same thing? I suspect they are. That's something we should always be prepared to look at.

I. Chong: The reason I've asked is, of course, that there has been mention in some areas that there could be duplication occurring at the local level as well as with the government agent, because people are perhaps going to one area or agent versus the municipality when they should be going to the municipality as opposed to the government agent. In fact, in those rural areas, if they were merged, perhaps there could be some cost savings, and those cost savings, therefore, could be used in other areas such as tourism promotion. That's one of the reasons it was raised. So I bring that forward to see whether this is something that the ministry would look at doing, rather than expanding the number of government agent offices.

Hon. D. Miller: We're not in an expansion mode.

I. Chong: Fair enough -- expanded by one, which is not a lot, but I didn't know whether you had other plans to do that.

The other item I noticed last year was that the ministry was evaluating a pilot project with the Ministry of Finance which enabled customers at government agent offices to pay for their transactions with a debit card. I'm wondering whether the minister can offer any insight as to the success of that -- if that's continuing or not.

Hon. D. Miller: We hope to implement the debit card system in all our offices over the balance of this year.

I. Chong: That more or less concludes the majority of the questions I have for the Small Business side of this ministry; there may be a few that I have this evening, should something else arise. I do have a colleague here who has some questions on Small Business as well, before we move on to some of the Tourism questions.

L. Stephens: I'd like to be fairly brief today. I want to talk about the businesswomen's advocate and the businesswomen's portion of Small Business, and to ask the minister if there have been any significant changes in this area over the last year and whether there is any in this minister's budget for the coming year, specifically around issues for women in accessing financing, perhaps in the area of counselling or mentoring -- anything along these lines.

Hon. D. Miller: The budget is there this year. The member probably is more familiar with it than I am at this point -- with what the advocate does in partnership with the regional economic development officers, essentially to provide that kind of support. We did talk earlier about a number of those programs and some of the training programs that were put on. I'm not aware, nor is anybody on my staff, of any additions to what's been happening.

Just some examples. The advocate responded to over 4,500 requests. There's a consultation process with regional representatives, made up of women's business organizations and other stakeholders; a series of regional and provincial training workshops focused on women's needs and issues, attended by over 4,000 participants; successful women role models and mentors; nominees for various business awards and private sector boards; pilot programs in education, awareness and mentoring; ongoing consultation with the business community; panel discussions; small business round tables; information to support research on current trends and statistics; and support services to the regional offices. There's a list of a number of publications. So they appear to be, in a couple of examples, providing the mentoring model.

L. Stephens: Is there anything specific, as far as the loans program is concerned, around financing opportunities for 

[ Page 1823 ]

women? That's one of the biggest areas of concern. I know the role of the advocate is to promote business ownership among women, and that is the number one drawback that most women face. There is a federal initiative with the western diversification fund that has just kicked in -- I think in February. I wonder if there's any partnership with the provincial people around that area, or whether in fact the ministry has their own program to help facilitate women accessing capital for startup and expansion.

Hon. D. Miller: No, we have nothing substantive. Staff have advised me that WD does have some program. I was actually asking for some statistics, because my sense from reading the press is that a lot of the new small businesses that are starting up are started by women, probably 50-50 or somewhere in there.

L. Stephens: There has been a steady increase in the number of women who are starting their own businesses, and a lot of them are home-based businesses, which eliminates a lot of the need for capital. But there is expansion, there is research, and there is penetration of markets, and this kind of thing.

The Federal Business Development Bank, when it was the Federal Business Development Bank, had a number of seminars and initiatives that they focused on in providing the kind of information and training that women business owners needed. One of the surveys indicated -- and I think this was a provincial survey -- that there needed to be really focused debate, particularly around management skills for women. I wonder if that is something that's been brought to the ministry's attention, and whether or not the businesswoman's advocate is concentrating on trying to help women develop those management skills that are important today.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure that's true, and I'm sure that those issues have been brought forward. I outlined some of the program outputs of the advocate, including some of the publications: Women in Business: Start-up Kit; Profile of Women Business Owners in British Columbia; "An Advocate for Women in Business"; fact sheets on financing, networking, marketing, and attending a workshop or conference; a brochure for young women in school; B.C.'s Business and Professional Women's Organizations -- Networking Directory; and "Women at Work -- Keeping Safe."

There are a series of business skills development workshops: Jumpstart '96 -- Women Creating Business; Women in Business: '96 Showcase -- Taking the Next Step; the self-employed nurses of B.C., Business Matters Conference; Balancing Work and Family; the Women 2000 Conference; and career days for young high school women.

There appears to be a fair amount of focus, and it's not all government, which is good. There is the Canadian Woman Entrepreneur of the Year Awards and conference -- In the Spirit of Success; and the YWCA Women of Distinction Awards and Young Woman of Distinction Award. Whether or not in the broader context that is sufficient, I'm really not in a position to comment, not having been the minister in this portfolio before, but it appears to me that it has been.

As well, I was pleased that we've moved in some ways where regulation is required. Not just women in business but particularly women who may be working on piece rates in their own home were subject to what, in my view, was outright exploitation. Particularly in the garment trade, it was quite common for people to work at what they thought was a given piece rate, only to turn their product back in and to be told that the piece rate had changed. There are pretty tough conditions; a lot of immigrant women are involved in that. Through the Employment Standards Act we've tried to regulate -- and have for the first time -- regulated so-called home work, to try to give at least minimal standard protection to women who are employed in those occupations.

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to hear the minister speak of that particular issue, because that was one that I wanted to raise with him: the number of visible minorities and immigrant women who are working in their homes with very little regulation and monitoring. Aside from the Employment Standards Act.... I'm sure the minister knows that as far as agricultural workers are concerned, the same difficulty would apply there. I wonder if the minister, perhaps as the Employment and Investment minister, would have more knowledge around that issue. What does he see applying not just to women particularly but to workers generally who may find themselves in that kind of situation? Is there going to be more monitoring, some kind of a system where businesses that do employ individuals -- in agriculture, for instance, farmworkers -- or those that employ workers in piecework or....?

I'm thinking now of garment manufacturing, the sewing. I can't recall the name of it now. But I wonder if the minister would comment on whether or not he sees a need for some kind of improvements to be made there.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I think the substantive changes brought about by the Employment Standards Act last year were intended to address.... Obviously you want to give the act some chance with the new provisions to see how it applies. But it's a pretty tricky field. I think a couple of issues come into play, even with an act that provides protection.

People, quite frankly, are afraid to use it. In other words, they will not pursue legitimate complaints that they might have through the Employment Standards Act in the Ministry of Labour because of fear. That's a very difficult one to deal with, because you obviously could never hire enough people to go out and inspect. You just simply couldn't do that. So what do you do? If you look at the hearing that Professor Thompson had in the Fraser Valley around the farmworker issue, you see that there's a great deal of fear that is part of that. People are not prepared to come forward and lay complaints.

We've done the best we could. We have brought about changes. For example, the inspection of the transportation vehicles was stepped up quite rigorously. There's a licensing requirement for those vehicles, so you don't get those old unsafe vans with holes through the floor and exhaust coming in and all those kinds of things. We're very, very rigorous in inspecting that.

We have made the farmer, in the case of agricultural workers, responsible for the wages, where that responsibility formerly only rested with the farm labour contractor. I must advise the member that I was beat up rather badly by the farmers. But I didn't mind; it didn't bother me at all. I thought that anybody who could look out on the field and see somebody working on their land should perhaps have some remote connection to the person, maybe some responsibility. So we've tried to tighten those up.

[ Page 1824 ]

I really got in trouble on babysitters. I got beat up badly -- by the Liberals, I think, too, and the Reformers over there.

[4:45]

L. Stephens: And you should have.

Hon. D. Miller: And I should have, the member says. But I guess I thought to myself, well, what do you do in the case of someone who is actually earning their income...?

An Hon. Member: Your own daughter beat you up, too, didn't she?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, my own daughter.... She didn't when I explained.

But what do you do in the case of someone who is earning their income in that fashion? I guess if you can say that it's true that garment workers have been the subject of exploitation, then I suppose it might be equally true to say that poor women, particularly, are in the same category. I'm not here to make judgments. I'm simply saying that there's no difference, if you like, in the logic of the arguments. The difference is in the emotion about babysitting, and I recognize that, and we withdrew that provision. Is there still an argument that says that if you are fully employed providing babysitting services, you should be, at the very minimum, entitled to $7 an hour for your labour? I suspect there probably is.

It seems reasonable on the face of it, if that's how you earn your living. If you are defined as a worker, why would it be that, in providing child care services, somehow you should not be subject to the regulations for employment standards, but that if you're sewing you should. One might argue that providing child care is, in fact, one of the more important things that we do. Therefore it seems to me there's a logical case. Understanding the potential impact and the concern expressed by people in the province, I withdrew that particular provision. But I don't think the argument has been lost; I don't think it's any different. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know.

L. Stephens: I don't think anyone is going to argue the merits of equality for women generally, not at all -- certainly not this member. Businesswomen, though, have some specific difficulties, and removing barriers for women to develop their businesses is one. I recognize that the minister is not the Minister of Small Business, although he is caretaking, if I can use that term. Still, he's the Minister of Employment and Investment, and I wonder if he would share with the committee the views of his government, and his own views in his role as that minister and as the Small Business minister, around the issue of women in business. Is it an important issue for the government and will they will be trying to do whatever they can to remove the barriers to women to acquire and expand their own businesses? What are his thoughts on that line? Rather than just seminars and those kinds of things, is there anything the ministry is contemplating that is going to really be substantive as far as assisting women to promote and increase their businesses?

Hon. D. Miller: I think we've had a pretty good discussion about some of the programs -- the advocate and some of the work that's being done there. Certainly I think it's fair to say that in addressing that issue as a government over the last five years, we have -- and will continue to so -- paid particular attention.

I think that fits in the broader context with our notion that our society needs to be representative in so many ways. It has not been, quite frankly, if you look at the issue. Again, it's one that you generally get a fairly rational debate on -- representation on boards and committees around the province. I think it's fair to say.... If you look at the appointments that have been made by our government over the last number of years, or since the '91 election, you'll see that for the first time there's been a fairly good increase not only in women being appointed to some of those boards -- whether they're Crown corporations, schools, colleges, or you name it -- but right across the spectrum of appointments made by government.

One of the goals was gender equity, as well as other issues about visible minorities having spots on those boards -- in other words, to represent how our society is really made up. I think there's been some tremendous progress there. It has been characterized in an offhand way as simply patronage by the opposition. That's fair enough; I understand that. If you really want to take a close, hard look, compare the kinds of appointments that have been made. I think they've been substantive. We maintain, obviously, a ministry devoted to women's issues. We currently have in this portfolio, when she returns, a woman who has that experience and who I think will do an outstanding job in this portfolio in business issues generally -- the small business community, tourism and culture, and those kinds of areas.

I think that looking at the programs we've had -- for example, one of the programs, the small business development for aboriginal women.... In my understanding of a lot of aboriginal communities, it has been pretty tough in some parts of the province trying to get some businesses moving. The economic base has not been there. And yet you'll find that a lot of the new businesses that are being started are being started by women. We provided this program that does provide support. Last year over 750 aboriginal women across the province were introduced to the basic principles of business development. Sixty aboriginal women entrepreneurs took part in phase 2 to develop new, self-sustaining enterprises in the private sector, resulting in 38 businesses.

I think that wherever there's an opportunity to provide that kind of program role and supportive role, this ministry and others have been out there doing that. I know, again going back to the training side and talking about some of the training programs, that equity has been one of the goals there, women in trades. We've done some very successful programs here in Victoria -- the rebuilding of the safe house for women, at the same time providing the women who were working in that program or who used to be on social assistance the opportunity for trades training. There was a marvellous ad that was run by the old ministry in that regard. In Terrace, again, there was a substantive program involving women in trades training. So there really has been, right across the board, some attempt to try to deal with a very legitimate issue in today's society.

L. Stephens: I wonder if the minister could tell me if the ministry is using any kind of benchmarking or accountability systems to determine whether the workshops and other programs that are in place are in fact effective, whether women are succeeding at a more rapid rate, whether their businesses are expanding, whether, in fact, they are still in business three to five years down the road. Are there are some statistics around what the ministry is doing and whether it's been effective?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there are publications available with respect to the broader questions that the mem-

[ Page 1825 ]

ber posed. We'd be pleased to see what we have that we might recommend to the member in that regard.

L. Stephens: For clarification, I'd like to know -- if this is a ministry publication -- whether the ministry itself is keeping statistics on what they're doing, on how many loans and initiatives they're putting forward to promote women and remove these barriers. Does the ministry have any figures of their own that track what they're doing, how effective it is, whether what they're doing is in fact what the customer needs and whether it's of benefit?

Hon. D. Miller: We are doing some of that, and there are some plans to do some more.

L. Stephens: Would the minister share those results with the critic when they are available?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure she would.

P. Reitsma: To the minister, a bit of a change of venue to talk about Tourism. I thank the minister and particularly his staff for being here. We had a briefing with the staff, which I much enjoyed. The approach is not a negative one but a very positive one. We're here to help, but we're also here to express some concerns.

My background, as I've mentioned before, has been for 30 years in the hospitality and tourism industry. I've done it for 30 years, starting out as a steward and assistant purser with the Holland America Line -- traversed all the oceans. I've been to probably 50 to 60 countries -- all continents except Australia and New Zealand, actually. I've also hosted many tours for companies such as Travelcar and Globus and Princess Cruises and the Holland America Line. I've done local tours: the Totem Circle tour throughout B.C. -- Penticton, Harrison Hot Springs and the like. Currently I'm part of the hospitality industry. I do own a motel and a couple of travel agencies as well. I'll tell you some of the badness.... I hope to go through the canal in September if the House doesn't sit that long, by the way; that's another story.

As mentioned, tourism is the second-largest industry. In fact, it's ahead of mining when it comes to the contribution to the GDP, the gross domestic product. As a private sector generator of jobs, the percentage is higher than in general. As the minister stated, some 220,000-plus people are directly or indirectly employed in and associated with the travel industry. Some 12,000 businesses -- ever increasing, of course -- are associated with this particular business.

As I mentioned, it's an extremely happy industry. You know, people go on their holidays. You can remember years ago, when you were young -- it was not all that long ago; according to your own statements, a couple of weeks ago -- going on your precious two- or three-week holidays, whatever. People are happy. People are exuberant. People are giddy. They're in a good mood. There's a lot of R and R -- relaxing and relaxation. Indeed, for many older people, particularly those in politics, it's an opportunity to recharge your life's batteries, as well.

[5:00]

Interjection.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

P. Reitsma: I know. We'll be done before the dinner hour; that's my compromise, actually.

When I hear of tourism, of course, I just perk up. By the way, I have no difficulties whatsoever in paying tribute to people like Bill Barlee and Grace McCarthy, who in their own ways, years ago, did wonderful things in the tourism industry. If you don't care who gets the credit, a lot of things can be done.

I mentioned that when I hear of tourism, I perk up and pay attention. It's often when people are at a barbecue, having a good time. Do you ever notice that once you put the steak on the barbecue, everybody's quiet? Of course, it's the sizzling of the steak on the barbecue that makes everybody take notice, as well as the taste buds getting excited. It's like champagne: when you uncork it, the pop makes people look up, and of course there is the tingle with the bubbles coming through the glass. It's all happy; it's all positive.

What I would like to do for B.C. is to have it be known as the sun porch of Canada. I'll go back to Qualicum.... Now passed on, of course, in this sojourn, is Frank Ney, who always promoted Nanaimo as the sun porch of B.C. When we talk about Mount Kilimanjaro or Mount Fuji, we're talking about mountains. But we have the same snow-capped, jagged mountains here in B.C. When we talk about mountains, I would like B.C. to be named in the same breath: Bavaria, the Alps and Switzerland -- other than chocolate cake, of course, I suppose, in Bavaria.

You know about lakes. Well, we have emerald lakes in pristine surroundings, so when people talk about Bavaria and Switzerland, I'd like B.C. to be mentioned in the same breath. It's not unlike the beaches in Hawaii. Everybody, of course, has twitched their toes at the beaches in Hawaii -- and in the Caribbean, for that matter. Well, we have long miles of beaches on the Pacific Rim, even at Rathtrevor Beach in Parksville, even on the west coast. I'd like those to be named in the same breath as those others.

We talk about sunrises and sunsets. There are beautiful ones on the African plains and the Galapagos Islands; I've been there as well. We've got magnificent sunsets here in B.C., as well; mention B.C. in the same breath. When you're talking about boating and fishing in the Caribbean, there's no better boating and fishing, of course, than right here in B.C. Last but not least, we're talking about the snowbirds going down to Arizona. More and more people are staying here for the winter, which is, of course, good business.

Governments can and must be innovative and enthusiastic in partnership. The general feeling, unfortunately, is that the tourism industry and the ministry are not seen as a high-profile, high-priority function of this government. I know that can be changed. Once the government creates that atmosphere, I think consumer confidence will be shown in terms of expansion. Indeed, consultation with the private sector is extremely important.

Tourism development means -- to me, at least -- at a minimum sustaining the current levels of funding and opportunities. Part of the consultation to me is getting feedback and showing interest, enthusiasm and innovation from the private sector as well. As I mentioned earlier, governments can create an atmosphere of interest and enthusiasm. It's almost like the government being the boss, going to the employees and showing some interest -- not just surface interest, not just in the bottom line, but in the way they do business and how they feel things are going.

A couple of questions -- probably about 45 minutes' worth actually.... The first one is regarding the three tourism resource planners in B.C. What budget do they come under, and are more tourism resource planners planned for?

[ Page 1826 ]

Hon. D. Miller: They come under the corporate policy branch.

I just want to respond briefly to the member. I can advise the member that I have taken a holiday -- once. If I owned a motel and a couple of travel agencies, I would, prior to the election, phone politics anonymous. That's the number where, when you get the urge to run, you can phone it up and they'll talk you out of it.

As far as I know, the most spectacular sunsets in British Columbia are in Prince Rupert. As far as I'm concerned, they are. I've never seen any to compare, anywhere in this province. They're absolutely -- and my colleague for Skeena will attest to that....

Not enough profile? We haven't been doing enough? There's some feeling that we're not caring enough. After all opposition members got up and extolled the virtues of my predecessor, Mr. Barlee, and I read out the statistics and the targets for looking at half a billion dollars more in revenue, and looking at the significant growth trends -- 32 percent increase from Asia, 14 percent from Europe -- gee, I don't know how anybody could have any room at all for even just a niggling little criticism. The film industry hit new records. I think we're doing everything we ought to do, and doing it well.

The member is absolutely right about this province in terms of what it has to offer, and all its variety and all its regions. We'll continue to work with the private sector as we're doing so well. We'll continue to see those.... What was that number the former minister used -- $9.9 billion in '99, almost $10 billion in '99? Well, we're looking at $7.17 billion this year. So we're on track, on target. It's growing. What more can I say?

P. Reitsma: You could answer the question.

Hon. D. Miller: I answered it.

P. Reitsma: I'm really happy that I'm eliciting some enthusiasm out of the minister about Prince Rupert, too, which is good. But I did have a question, and in his enthusiasm I guess the question was temporarily cast aside.

Hon. D. Miller: We had four planners? Is the member interested in knowing how many we have?

P. Reitsma: Three.

Hon. D. Miller: We have four. See, no wonder people think we're not paying attention. The member thinks we only have three and we have four.

We've done some work around providing support to the land use planning process. Obviously that's integration of those land use plans in a broader sense so that tourists will not be faced with the worst aspects of natural resource development where that might show offensive and the kind of sophisticated planning that takes place with respect to profiling the scenic corridors. So I think we're working right across the spectrum to plan for a very healthy tourism industry in this province for many years to come.

P. Reitsma: So I take it that no further tourism resource planners are planned for.

Secondly, some concern expressed from the tourism community in the Kootenays is that the chap who is looking after the Kootenays lives in Victoria. Could the minister confirm that, as well as that no further resource planners are being planned for?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it's really an efficiency. I mean, we could set up offices, but then we'd have the cost of supporting the office. I guess the question is: are you better served by having someone who has a mandate to serve a particular region, in terms of being cost-effective, or should you spend the money setting up offices? I think we're probably on the right track.

P. Reitsma: I understand that the revenue generated through tourism was about $6.4 billion in 1994 and $6.7 billion in 1995. What is anticipated or estimated for 1996?

Hon. D. Miller: It is $7.17 billion.

P. Reitsma: Concern has been expressed -- in fact it was brought up a little bit earlier -- that investors in the hospitality industry don't feel particularly welcome because of the high taxes in the tourism industry. Generally for a first-class hotel, the costs.... They are looking at something like $10 million in terms of corporate capital tax, a myriad of consumer taxes -- liquor, hotel room, meals, fuel -- and apparently the highest labour rate costs in the country, as well as huge regulatory burdens. Could I have the minister's comments?

Hon. D. Miller: I gather there are plans to build 15 new hotels in the lower mainland. I don't know if that's an indication of investor confidence or not. I tend to think it is. And you can't get a room there. Try to get a room.

Read this story on the front page of the Sun here. What does this guy say? This guy came from Ontario and got a job right away in the tourism industry, the hospitality industry. Fifty new employees were added to the Hyatt staff since last summer -- a 10 percent increase. "While hotel staff levels have always risen in the summer, the increased business has been consistent and year-round."

An Hon. Member: Where?

Hon. D. Miller: The Hyatt in Vancouver.

An Hon. Member: An expensive place.

Hon. D. Miller: That's an expensive place, that's right.

I don't know how we do when you look at the overall.... I think the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head was correct in terms of the exchange rate and the benefits of that, and I don't suspect that, in a relative way, you're going to see a heck of a change between the U.S. and Canadian dollar. I think, given what we have to offer both in the physical, the geographic, and the service sense -- and the bargains; I mean, try to walk across the causeway here at night.... Not that we get out at night. You know, I looked out my window once.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure all of us would be quite happy to do our bit if we could only finish this up and get moving here.

P. Reitsma: I must say, though, the minister is somewhat selective. The golden triangle is Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler, and, by all real accounts, they are up a tremendous amount. But the outlying areas are not. In fact, I'll come back to that later.

[ Page 1827 ]

In 1992, the Ministry of Tourism's "Charting Tourism's Course: A Vision and Business Plan" was unveiled. On page 9.... I'll read it to the minister:

"Regional Distribution of Tourism Benefits. Tourism growth has not occurred evenly throughout the province over the past decade. Some parts of the interior are in serious danger of losing market share. If the benefits of tourism are to be shared more evenly around the province, then tourism businesses must upgrade and invest in quality products. Such investment will only occur, however, if issues relating to land use, financing, marketing and infrastructure are addressed. Much of the tourism plant in the interior of the province is aging and does not appeal to the international growth market. If more product development is to take place, communities will need to attract investors and ensure an adequate tourism infrastructure -- like transportation, waste management, communications, etc. -- is in place."

Could I ask the minister what has happened, what has changed since that time, and if any success can be measured on this particular state?

Hon. D. Miller: It's very clear that the issues addressed there have been dealt with -- not in terms of suggesting that all of those issues are completed, but infrastructure is something we've committed a great deal of resources to. I think there was a question in question period today about an outbreak of something in the water supply.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: What else will the infrastructure program do but secure those water supplies in a better state than they are now?

Land use planning. Has somebody been asleep over the last five years in terms of land use planning? I don't even have to talk about it.

Island Highway. There you go. We're spending money, which we've been criticized for.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: We've been spending too much money, the member for Oak Bay says.

An Hon. Member: No way.

[5:15]

Hon. D. Miller: I'm certain she was advocating spending more money. I think it's in Hansard. I think it's on the record.

I remember reading an article last week. I think it was the mayor of Fort St. John, or some similar location, who was bragging about how tourism growth is so phenomenal up in the northeast and people are just dying to get up there and take a look. I've talked about the mid-coast and the new service. We have close to 10,000 visits now: riders on the new mid-coast; all the hoteliers in the Bella Coola Valley are all upgrading their hotels -- you can't get a room there in the summer; the new circle tour up across the Chilcotin plateau. More and more. This government has just been so dynamic; to keep a list in my head would be impossible. I think the answer is pretty self-evident with respect to going back to.... It was only 1992, and we've accomplished so much between then and now.

P. Reitsma: Words, words. I appreciate that, and I would love to get into a debate on the Island Highway, but this is not the appropriate place.

In July 1995 the government announced a new tourism program called Vacation B.C. in order to encourage British Columbians to spend more money on tourism in the province -- which is laudable, of course. Could the minister outline the details of the general awareness component of this initiative?

Hon. D. Miller: Results from the spring 1996 campaign show that calls from B.C. residents to the Super, Natural British Columbia toll-free reservation service were up an impressive 32 percent, with reservations growing by 85 percent over the same period last year. So it appears that it was quite popular.

Here are some quotes. From David Prystay, general manager of the Clarion Lakeside Resort in Penticton: "Superb. One of the best marketing programs available. Offers exciting new opportunities in the shoulder season." Mr. Lee Morris, general manager of High Country Tourism Association: "Our winter getaway program built new business for local operators that wouldn't have been there without B.C. Time to Play." Mr. Benjamin Colling, sales director of Rosedale On Robson Suite Hotel, Vancouver: "We saw a 35 percent jump in business as a direct result of B.C. Time to Play bookings through the Super, Natural toll-free reservation system." So it appears that the industry players liked it, and it had some results.

P. Reitsma: On Vacation B.C., could the minister outline what cooperative promotional programs with industry were launched as part of this initiative?

Hon. D. Miller: Fifteen cost-shared projects involving more than 200 industry operators and totalling over $1 million have been launched with regional and city tourism destination marketing associations. Three new B.C. Time to Play co-op projects are set to go this fall, including an agri-tourism and wine festival package sponsored by the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association. In addition, hundreds of tourism operators are participating in the Super, Natural B.C. reservation system with special pricing and package offers.

P. Reitsma: When Vacation B.C. was launched, the government indicated that one of the components of the program would include an evaluation framework. Could the minister provide details as to the evaluation framework and its effectiveness to date in terms of measuring success? How do you know that you have succeeded?

Hon. D. Miller: It appears to have been an outstanding success.

P. Reitsma: How do you know that you've succeeded?

Hon. D. Miller: Reservations growing by 85 percent, I would say, is one benchmark of success. The testimonial of the private sector is another. To all intents and purposes, it appears to have been a good program.

P. Reitsma: Is it the government's intention to spend another $2 million on this program in this fiscal year?

Hon. D. Miller: It was so good that, yes, we are.

P. Reitsma: Can the minister outline how effective this program has been in terms of the impact the program has had on encouraging British Columbians to spend more money on tourism in the province? Would the minister have any numbers?

[ Page 1828 ]

Hon. D. Miller: We don't have any really good stats here, Mr. Chairman, just some interesting information. B.C. residents travelling in the province have generated an estimated $3.5 billion in revenue for the industry this year, which is close to 50 percent of total revenue from all markets, expected to reach the record high of $7.2 billion set during '86. About two-thirds of those people we call tourists are in fact B.C. residents, and they generate some 50-odd percent of all revenue. I guess the notion was that this could be increased through this kind of program, and it in fact appears that that's the case. As to absolute numbers, we don't have them.

The B.C. regional market grew by 4.4 percent in '95. The North American long-haul market increased by 5.7 percent. Compared to '94, the number of visitors from the Asia-Oceania market grew by over 38 percent and from the European market by 12 percent. We've seen some fairly good growth right across the piece, and I guess it makes sense for a fairly modest program to try to generate an increase from the so-called domestic tourists.

All in all, I'd say it looks pretty good, Mr. Chairman, looking at these growth numbers. As I say, B.C. regional is 4.4 percent, long-haul North America is 5.7 percent, Asia-Oceania is 38 percent and Europe, 11 percent -- not bad at all. I'd say Mr. Barlee was right on the job, doing a great, spectacular job. He has probably left big shoes to fill, but I'm sure my colleague is eager to get back here and continue that very good work.

P. Reitsma: I was really trying to find out.... I appreciate that a couple of million are spent on trying to encourage BC'ers to do more internal holidaying, of course, but I wanted to see some measure of success, knowing if you have succeeded, particularly if you're going to have the program again next year. Perhaps it is not possible; maybe it's too intangible to come up with those numbers. Suffice it to say that it has gone up. I just wonder if there's a direct correlation between the funds expended and the numbers increase. I assume there is; it's just that we probably won't have the exact numbers. I'll leave it like that; that's fine.

I just want a comment from the minister on the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. November 1995 report. On page 3, COTA's position on sources of funding is:

"COTA believes the industry requires a secure, long-term funding source which will ensure the future of B.C.'s competitiveness. This source would include the already significant marketing dollars generated by industry. The government's source should be linked to the performance of the industry. This funding would then provide for long-term budget certainty for sustainable market development and marketing. This form of budgeting has been used successfully in other jurisdictions, and has resulted in a significant net increase in the overall contribution. COTA believes that this can be realized for B.C."

Hon. D. Miller: No, it's an approach to budgeting which I don't think makes sense, Mr. Chairman.

P. Reitsma: In a letter to the deputy minister in February, earlier this year, it was indicated to them that: "COTA believes that adequate recognition in the form of a budget increase should be expected, and the framework agreement" -- I'll come back to that later -- "allows for possible changes." The writer, Pat Corbett, who's the chair, proposed a joint review of the funding formula after one year: "We should assess the validity of the performance measurements offered and consider the need to develop a performance-based funding formula reflecting the industry growth."

I'm going to the Tourism budget for 1996-1997. In 1995 it was $25,055,000; it's slated to be $23,408,000 for 2008. However, under the agreement signed, it called for funding of $24.06 million, which really is a decrease of $528,777. I wonder where that money is going, or where that should be coming from.

Hon. D. Miller: We really have developed Tourism as a special operating agency, and that's a device, I guess, that is somewhat akin to a Crown, but it's in-house and gives the opportunity for that unit to set targets, to develop certain revenue streams and to retain portions of that revenue -- in other words, to act in almost a businesslike way and to be challenged in respect to that. So you do set targets for them.

It's our view that that holds some promise with respect to reducing the line administrative budget that you would normally apply and creating perhaps a bit more of an entrepreneurial spirit in a group within government. It's something you really want to keep your eye on, I think, to be sure that it's achieving its intended purpose.

But clearly this is an area of growth. People in the ministry are very good at what they do; they have been for some time. They know the people in the private sector and work well with them, so I think we've set some realistic targets for them, and in turn they will achieve some realistic growth.

P. Reitsma: I'll rephrase my question. The special operating agency framework agreement signed by the secretary of Treasury Board, the deputy minister, and the Assistant Deputy Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, on behalf of this government, had a minimum budget for the SOA of $24.06 million. The SOA figures from the budget documents tabled in the Legislature, of course, show a budget of $23,408,000.

My question is: why, although I can account for the...? There is a deficit of $652,000, but I can account for $123,223. The minister, Penny Priddy, gave me a note, and that amount -- $123,000 and some change -- is a transfer that had not been done. But still, it is almost $529,000 less than was agreed upon when the framework was signed.

[5:30]

Hon. D. Miller: The framework number that the hon. member referred to was an estimate. The final number is the detailed work that produced the budget.

P. Reitsma: On that, I am going to the framework agreement for the following year, which is $23.87 million, and in '98-99 is $23.76 million. Could the minister give me an update on those figures, and has the industry been consulted on that?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't. Next year, or the year after, you may ask the same question relative to the difference. But one is an estimate and one is the detailed work that produces the budget, and that will always be the case.

P. Reitsma: I don't buy that. Under the framework there was a three-year commitment for those numbers. I don't think it's particularly smart financial management for the provincial government to decrease the budget so dramatically for tourism, given its importance to the government. Has COTA been advised? Have they been consulted? Have they been involved?

Hon. D. Miller: I think a closer reading of the information will advise the member that those numbers are estimates. 

[ Page 1829 ]

The private sector participates here, and they all know what the numbers are. What more can I say?

G. Farrell-Collins: Of course they're estimates. They're always estimates.

Hon. D. Miller: They're estimates. Even your colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain has just confirmed to me that they're estimates. The actual numbers are the real numbers. But the chairs, the private sector chairs, the committee -- I think they're all quite pleased about what we are doing.

P. Reitsma: No, they're not pleased, not at all. That obviously means that the minister has not consulted with them to avail them of the decrease. As far as I'm concerned, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul in the short term. The saving to the provincial government treasury is negligible, whereas tourism generates significant revenues. Where is the rationale for cutting spending when you should be encouraging growth in this sector through marketing? Was it agreed upon in the framework?

My earlier question wasn't answered. Were COTA officials part of the decision to reduce by a good $528,000 those amounts?

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to read the page relative to this question, and the heading is "Management Services Budget Estimate." It's an estimate, so what's everybody getting torched up about? There's an estimate; we came out with an actual. There's a very modest difference. Tourism is up. It's doing well. Revenues are up. There are more tourists. I don't quite follow: it was an estimate, and I didn't write it. My officials have confirmed that it's an estimate.

P. Reitsma: The minister may not have written it, but I think that, written by someone else, he's happy to fast-track to take the credit for it as well, if it is positive.

My question, for the third time now: have COTA officials been informed of the cutback? The minister full well knows -- I hope he knows -- that for every dollar spent in marketing, there is a tenfold return. So $528,000 is a lot of money.

Hon. D. Miller: I think I've indicated that they were.

You know, having fought an election and been lambasted for spending too much money, I've been sitting here all afternoon listening to Liberals tell me that I'm not spending enough: "The government should be spending more money." It's a bit perplexing. Here we have an industry that's a growth industry. This is the classic Keynesian economics: you've got a growth industry, revenues are up, business is up, and the Liberals advocate spending more government money during those times? Now, that makes a lot of sense. That makes all the sense in the world.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: When the private sector is flourishing, taking care of its own, we're working in an excellent partnership way, and the Liberals' remedy is to spend more money. I can't believe it, Mr. Chairman. I'm being assailed from all quarters here. I'm offering a simple, logical defence, and it's falling on deaf ears.

P. Reitsma: We are not talking about the possible $10 million that B.C. Hydro might be losing. That's another story; that's money well spent, of course.

However, going back to the.... I guess every dollar in marketing generates a tenfold return. I appreciate that the minister said that they are estimates; we have had estimates before, and they were out of order.

My argument is that a framework agreement was signed by the secretary of Treasury Board, agreed to by COTA, and that has not been lived up to. I'll go back to the announcement, way back in April, when Premier Clark announced some of the SOA speech notes. It stated in there that COTA agreed that we needed a long-term stable funding source that grows as the industry grows. By the sound of it, as the industry grows, the stable funding formula is decreasing.

We need a private sector-driven authority or agency to direct the marketing and tourism industry development of B.C. We need to recognize why we are doing well in B.C. It's the product. It's supernatural land, water and air -- and, I guess, the sunsets in Prince Rupert, no doubt, help, as well. We have the highest cost in tax here in North America to contend with, so the product better be good, and we need to be sure to protect it.

I understand there is no legislation for the SOA?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that's true.

P. Reitsma: Does the minister not think that gives an appearance of a weak instrument of government? It needs to be legislated and not created as an agreement between two departments of government. If it is legislated, it would be the contention to create much more political stability in the agency. I'd like the comments of the minister on that, please.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I think it will work just fine.

P. Reitsma: It is the contention of the industry that this formula very much penalizes it, because there is no ability whatsoever for the budget to the SOA to grow as the industry grows. This is a serious flaw and a most dramatic hindrance to the future growth of the industry. There is tremendous support for change and improvement within the industry across the province. I'd like to hear the comments of the minister, please.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I think we are doing a very good job. I think my predecessor did an outstanding job. It's reflected in the growth numbers that I've talked about, both on the revenue side and the volume side. Everywhere you turn in this province, there is opportunity in the tourism sector. I don't know how even Grace McCarthy could have done a better job.

P. Reitsma: There is a feeling, though, that the SOA is not at arm's length, and that it's more like a wrestling match. My contention is that it would be much more effective if it were at arm's length and if the existence of the SOA were indeed legislated.

Who is appointed to the SOA, and how do you select those people?

Hon. D. Miller: It's through ministerial appointments, in consultation with COTA.

[ Page 1830 ]

P. Reitsma: There are some milestones in one's life, I suppose: getting married, a twenty-fifth anniversary -- or a fiftieth anniversary, for that matter -- school graduation, centennials and so on. We just celebrated 125 years of joining Confederation. In fact, 130 years ago Vancouver Island joined the province. To my knowledge, there were no celebrations, stamps, coins, banners, plates, commemorative memorabilia or anything of that sort -- coffee mugs, tiles and what have you. Manitoba did that, and it was a tremendous success.

It could have been done with the private sector. It is a job generator, a money generator and a tax generator. With good marketing, a lot could have been done. Can I have the comments of the minister, please, as to why it was not considered? Was it a matter of time?

Hon. D. Miller: Indeed, there are many mileposts in our lives, and some of them we don't want to remember -- the last election, the one before, the next election. Who knows?

Not to belittle the very important occasion of the 125th anniversary, I think there was a program. I wasn't the minister when the work was done, but obviously there was work done. There is a logo out there, I think. I think the Premier had a very successful day in Barkerville. I think everybody's aware generally.

Mr. Chairman, I'm aware that the year is rapidly fading away, but I'm sure these estimates are important.

P. Reitsma: Hon. Chair, I think this is another example of the type of enthusiasm and innovation we see.

Hon. D. Miller: Oh, get serious.

P. Reitsma: I am serious, indeed. It was a serious question. I got a half-baked answer, and you're asking for a serious response. That's important. It was done in Manitoba. It was done on other occasions as well in conjunction with the private sector, which is extremely important.

If I might come back to the SOA, of those appointments, how many ministerial appointments are there and how many does the industry makes recommendations on?

Hon. D. Miller: Appointments are 15. Nominations are made by: Festivals B.C.; there's an at-large appointment of a person with marketing, finance and legal backgrounds; the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture; the transportation sector; the B.C. Network Council; the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism; another at-large by the sports fishing institute; the Restaurant and Foodservices Association; the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association; the Council of Regional Tourism Associations; Tourism Vancouver; Tourism Victoria; Tourism Whistler; and the Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Employees and Bartenders Union. It appears to canvass the full range of groups.

[5:45]

P. Reitsma: Does the ministry participate as a partner in trade shows throughout Canada, North America and, indeed, the rest of the world? Depending on the time of year, many people make their vacation arrangements half a year to a year in advance. I just wonder if the ministry is participating in trade shows throughout.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we do. I don't have a list here, unless somebody can pass me one, but yes, we do.

P. Reitsma: Certainly in my business in the travel agencies, in order to familiarize staff with the products in a particular destination, we send them on what we call familiarization trips. It is actually a very good vehicle, often sponsored by a particular country or company. Is anything of the sort...?

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: I'd like to remind the Chair that the member for Alberni should be sitting at his own chair when he wants to critique.

Is anything like this done with the ministry -- sending people out on familiarization trips or something like that?

Hon. D. Miller: I was going to stand up and say that my staff advise me that they travel extensively, but that's not really the right answer, and they wouldn't be happy if I said that.

The answer to the member's question is yes.

P. Reitsma: I understand that we used to have an office in Los Angeles. I understand that the office is closed, the person now works out of his basement, and that the same thing happened in Washington. Are there any plans, because of the increase in visits to Canada from the States, to consider opening the office in Los Angeles again?

Hon. D. Miller: We've never had an office in Washington. The current situation in Los Angeles has existed for about three years, I understand. We don't really need an office for that person to be effective.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.

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