(Hansard)
MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1996
Afternoon
Volume 2, Number 19, Part 2
[ Page 1831 ]
The House resumed at 6:42 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. J. Cashore: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the House, I call Committee B to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, perhaps I could be advised as to the area of some of the questioning we're getting into now, because some of our staff are in the dining room. We may need to just let people know what topics are coming up.
W. Hurd: Just to clarify for the minister, to continue our earlier discussion I intend to ask a few questions with respect to the Crown Land Activities document. Then I have a brief series of questions on the Métis agreement. I don't know if the appropriate officials are here for that, but
I want to ask the minister about the rules governing private land in the province with respect to where the Crown authorizes certain uses. The minister will be aware that in the Crown land activities document, the issue of private land encumbrance will apply where the Crown authorizes certain uses for that land.
First of all, I wonder if the minister can advise the committee whether, as a result of this policy, the ministry has identified private land in the province where such an encumbrance has been identified or where the notion of title has been identified. Or at this stage are we just dealing with it within the confines of the Crown Land Activities document? Are there specific examples that he could cite where in fact the encumbrance has been identified and duly noted by the ministry?
[6:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: The Crown land activities policy is specifically related to Crown land. However, there have been some areas where it's been indicated that there is a right that also involves private land, such as on a heritage site. There we would have the definition of the Heritage Conservation Act, so it would be very specific. An area where it might not be quite so specific would be an area such as fishing on a private lake, which is not clearly spelled out. You have an array of possibilities there, but the Crown land activities policy is drafted to deal with Crown land activities only.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware of incidents at Douglas Lake and Gustafsen Lake where the issue of the use of private land was the subject of obvious disagreement by the parties. Since the minister did raise the issue of fishing on a private lake, I wonder whether as a result of the agreement to terminate the hostilities at Douglas Lake, in that particular instance, the Crown land activities policy would anticipate a ceremonial use for fishing in a lake.
Hon. J. Cashore: No.
W. Hurd: I wonder, then, if the minister can cite some examples of where the activities on Crown land would be regulated. Are we dealing specifically with the identification of burial sites at this point and the overlapping jurisdiction and identification under the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act? Or would there be cases where the ministry has identified an encumbrance on private land in the province? Are we seeing the initiative coming from this ministry, or is it primarily just backing up the Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, which governs all heritage sites in the province?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm reminded that there has been some discussion in reference to the Crown land activities policy, which acknowledges certain realities that have come out of the court framework. There is a hypothetical possibility that some rights, such as food-gathering rights, could in some instances be considered to relate to Crown land. It's my understanding that this comes out of the Delgamuukw decision.
In terms of defining actual instances, I don't have the kind of specifics that the hon. member is looking for. It think it's an area that we seldom hear of, except in cases such as the fishing case which we talked about, and also those that are clearly defined by legislation -- which is, incidentally, not aboriginal rights legislation in the first place but heritage legislation. Nevertheless, it defines instances where certain heritage sites would require certain types of protection on private land. I guess we saw the most dramatic example of that at Nanoose Bay.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that there are other types of what I would term "private property rights" that are impacted by the Crown land activities policy. Specifically under section 6.0 there is mention of tenures authorizations that are granted by the Crown.
In the case of Gustafsen Lake, where you had a component of private land that was rolled into a larger component of public land in the form of a management unit -- in that case a ranch -- does the Crown, under this policy, make a differentiation for the rolling over of the tenure if this is the case? Clearly this policy anticipates that before the tenure is rolled over there is a requirement on the part of the Crown to identify potential aboriginal rights and to work with first nations to identify what those might be. In the case of a ranch or a forest tenure where you do have that mixture of public and private land, is it specifically understood that the infringement, if it's identified, is only applicable to the public land component of that management unit? Or could it theoretically apply to the tenure as a whole?
Hon. J. Cashore: A couple of things come up. The hon. member referred to when a tenure is about to roll over. The fact is that a tenure still is Crown land -- I think that's pretty clear. Now, where it comes to an activity on a Crown land, that is where the Crown land activities policy primarily clicks in. I would expect -- and, again, I'm not in the position of the Minister of Forests to answer this question -- that the rollover of a tenure would be considered an activity that if a first nation decided they wanted to raise that issue, they would be in a position to do so. Again, I might stand corrected by the Minister of Forests with regard to the actual application in that instance.
With regard to the activities on private land, again it's very difficult to canvass this without using actual specifics of
[ Page 1832 ]
where this has come up. I don't, to my knowledge, believe that that has come up in the application of anything relating to Gustafsen Lake. As a matter of fact, I think that the Gustafsen Lake issue was based on some, I would say, unacceptable approaches by those who carried on that action -- approaches which were also unacceptable to the local Indian band. I'm not sure how that example would apply.
We have referred to the Douglas Lake example. I think that's getting into the area of not having a lot of definition. My understanding is that the issue is referenced in Delgamuukw, but again it's an area where we as a government would move very, very cautiously.
W. Hurd: What I am trying to do is to refocus the minister and the staff on the specific requirements of the Crown Land Activities document where it indicates the types of activities on Crown land which are regulated. Under tenures it talks about the alienation of Crown land or resources by Crown grant, lease or licence, converting a licence to a lease or permitting a lessee to purchase the lease premises when those options are outlined in the original document. With respect to a forest tenure, for example, or a grazing tenure, where the applicant has a portion of private land rolled into a larger management unit, I am asking whether the document would apply to the range of activities on the tenure as a whole or whether the private land component of it would be specifically excluded.
The second question relates to people who hold Crown leases, like foreshore leases or something, with an option to purchase. I am aware that a number of those exist in the province. One could consider that as a right -- an option to purchase being a right -- and some would argue a private property right. I just wonder whether or not, potentially, that right could be alienated by the identification of an aboriginal right or in some way held up. I'm just seeking clarification on those two points.
Hon. J. Cashore: If it came to a matter of -- again, I think I've answered this -- say, a rollover of a lease or a licence, or somebody exercising a right to purchase, under the Crown land activities policy, the first nation would have a right to seek consultation, to seek to be consulted and to identify issues. But they would not have a veto. They would not have a de facto right to put a stop to that, but they would have a right to seek consultation.
W. Hurd: Under the document -- and we've been down this road before -- there is a requirement on the part of the Crown to identify an unextinguished aboriginal right. I'm just trying to determine, in the event of a tenure rollover, where clearly the component of public land lumped in with private land is what makes the licence viable, in the case of a forest tenure, for
The concern I might have is whether or not, if the licence were rolling over in the normal way -- in the case of a forest licence it's a five-year rollover; in the case of a grazing tenure it might be
[7:00]
Hon. J. Cashore: I do recognize -- and I have made this point many times myself, especially having visited ranches in the Cariboo at the invitation of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association -- that a viable cattle ranch requires backup of Crown land in order to make it viable. I get that point.
The hon. member is asking a question that I'm having a difficult time grasping. It has to do with private land and whether or not the Crown land activities policy impacts that private land. The answer is basically no. It does not impact that private land. Insofar as someone may produce a position based on something coming out of a court case, it is hypothetically within the realm of possibility that there might have to be a consideration based on criteria that came out of that court case being applied in this instance.
Again, I think we are getting into territory here that is very uncharted. All I can say is, as I said before, that is an area where it would behoove government, if government had a role, to proceed very, very cautiously -- recognizing the importance of all the positions that we've taken all along and continue to take about private land. Private land, for instance, is not on the table in negotiations. That is our fundamental position. I think perhaps part of the assurance that we need here is the fact that this issue has not come up, to my knowledge, in any volume of such claims.
W. Hurd: I'm probably not making myself clear. I'm not intending to confuse the minister, but the policy clearly stipulates that such things as resource rollovers, tenure rollovers, licence rollovers would be subject to the impact of this policy. The only caution I would give the minister with respect to those tenure rollovers is that they do involve a component of public and private land. If in any way the private land component were subject to an interpretation under this activities guide -- because they are part of one management unit -- then that would concern me greatly. I'm comforted by the minister's suggestion that it wouldn't apply to the private land component of that tenure, and perhaps I'll go back and look at Hansard to satisfy myself that that's exactly what he did say.
The only other question I have with respect to this document refers again to the legal interpretation of consultation. I know the minister has talked briefly about this with other members of the committee, but I was particularly interested in section 7.2.4 of the Crown Land Activities document which says:
Hon. J. Cashore: It would not be the position of the government to take it to court. But we do know that policy has been shaped by the fact that various parties have taken issues to courts. Courts have come out with decisions that sometimes move the envelope a little bit, and that then becomes a factor. It's not a factor that we would seek, but if it becomes one due to other circumstances, then it's a factor we have to take note of. But it's in the future and very hypothetical.
W. Hurd: Just one other question, then, with respect to the Crown Land Activities document. In section 7.2, observation is made that "the province is currently faced with a lack
[ Page 1833 ]
of information on aboriginal rights, and few central mechanisms exist for compiling and making this type of information available on a shared basis. In the absence of a coordinated central database or inventory for obtaining information on specific first nations rights and
I wonder if the minister can advise the committee whether any progress has been made in dealing with this problem since the document was first produced, I assume, as a guide for all ministries, and whether the problem of a lack of shared information continues to exist, or whether there's a voted expenditure within this set of estimates to try to deal with that specific issue, which would dovetail all the interim measures agreements and any encumbrances which may have been identified under this policy. Are we seeing any progress with respect to establishing such a mechanism for cross-referencing all this material?
Hon. J. Cashore: There is no such data bank or inventory.
W. Hurd: That invites one further question: why? The ministry has identified that it is a need and says it is currently faced with a lack of information and that there are no mechanisms available. Does the minister acknowledge that there might be a problem here that should be addressed, perhaps in this set of estimates or at some future point?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, I don't think anything has happened that is inconsistent with what was stated and what the member referred to. A body of experience and information is evolving as the line ministries carry out this policy. They are learning from that, and I would say that that body of experience and information is much greater at this time than it was a year ago, and that informs the process admirably.
W. Hurd: One other recommendation in the Crown Land Activities document is that where the province has repeatedly made unsuccessful efforts to engage in consultation, legal advice should be sought from the Ministry of Attorney General. Can the minister tell us whether the number of consultations with the Attorney General is increasing? Perhaps he can tell us how that legal advice is charged to the ministry. Is it just a matter of routinely applying to the AG's ministry for ongoing legal advice, or is there a chargeback on that?
Hon. J. Cashore: All I'll say about that is that we do seek advice from the Attorney General. That is a resource that's made available to our ministry which has had a key role in developing policies that are carried out by line ministries. So yes, that advice from the Attorney General has been and continues to be significant. As for the number of calls and that sort of thing, such questions would have to be made to the Attorney General. We don't keep that information.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister can outline for the committee the nature of the advice that the Attorney General's ministry offers with respect to not only this document but the whole issue of land claims generally. Is it advice that is referenced with the legal ramifications of the ongoing Treaty Commission process?
Hon. J. Cashore: I won't say what the advice is, but I will say that the advice is implicit in the Crown land activities policy and other policies of this government with regard to treaty-making. We wouldn't have the policy if we didn't have the advice; the advice is implicit in the policy.
W. Hurd: I'm trying to straighten out that answer. Clearly, the policy which guides all ministries indicates that there is backup from the Attorney General's ministry. I would certainly feel more comfortable if the minister were to tell us that the Attorney General's ministry is fully apprised of developments with respect to court cases; there is a whole range of advice and expertise that it may possess. I didn't find the minister's answer particularly reassuring, but I guess I can leave it at that. Perhaps at some future date the ministry could advise us as to what kind of advice they receive from the AG's ministry -- perhaps with respect to this specific document. I'll let it go at that; the minister might want to respond at a future date. I have just a few other questions. I don't have any further questions on the Crown land document, but I would like to express the concern that there still appears to be a lot of grey areas here which are open for interpretation.
I also want to ask the minister a question about the draft memorandum between the federal and provincial governments and the Pacific Métis federation. Could the minister tell us where that agreement stands and, in particular, if discussions are developing with respect to the self-government provisions of the draft agreement?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Métis have signed a memorandum of understanding among themselves, because, as the member knows, there are a number of different components, organizations and groups throughout the province. I commend them for the fact that they have come together and signed an MOU amongst themselves to hold an election this fall in order to determine Métis leadership in B.C. This is something that the province had suggested and encouraged for the past year. We look forward to working with the Métis as an aboriginal organization once they achieve that process of bringing them all under one umbrella, so to speak, so that we can be involved in a positive way, working with them in the area of delivery of services to Métis people in B.C.
The hon. member references the agreement that our government has been working on. That is on hold and held in abeyance until the stage I have just described has been completed.
W. Hurd: It occurs to me that I may have been able to benefit from a briefing on the agreement. It was my understanding that it was the subject of signatures by the Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but if the minister is saying that the agreement hasn't been finalized, then I don't really have a lot of questions about it.
[7:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: I am not absolutely sure of this, but I believe that prior to my becoming the minister there could have been an agreement signed. I don't know this for sure, but it's in the realm of possibility that such an agreement was signed at that level, to set up the process to begin the negotiations towards some kind of an MOU. It had no substantive meaning beyond process.
W. Hurd: As I look at the agreement, which is contained within the Pacific Métis Federation report, it may well be a memorandum of understanding as opposed to a framework agreement. I do note that even in this draft memorandum of understanding there was a commitment on the part of the ministry, or the government of the province, to provide the Pacific Métis Federation with funding to pursue its negotiations. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not the ministry is providing any funding, under this draft memorandum of understanding, to further the process.
[ Page 1834 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: There is the Métis Tripartite Secretariat, the instrument that has brought about the process which is leading toward this election among themselves to elect a leader. We have within the budget up to $100,000 for the purpose of enabling the Métis organization, once it becomes established, to support it in its organizational activities. It is my understanding that that money has not been made available to that organization and will not be made available until that organization becomes a unified entity.
W. Hurd: I was just looking at section 6(1) of the draft agreement. Under the heading "Resources for Pacific Métis Federation Participation," it says: "Adequate funding will be provided by both levels of government so the Pacific Métis Federation can carry out community consultations and participate fully in the negotiation process." If I understand the minister's response correctly, he is saying there is $100,000 in funding to do this work, but that it is in abeyance pending the creation of some sort of regulatory or elected body to negotiate further with the provincial government.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the previous fiscal year, they did receive some money within that budget limitation to do the work of the secretariat and bring their organizations together. In the previous fiscal year there was some money made available to them. In this fiscal year there is some money budgeted, but that money has not been made available
W. Hurd: This is a question that I just wanted to get clarification on. It may belie a lack of understanding of the treaty process as a whole, but would it be fair to say that the arrangements the government has with the Pacific Métis Federation, in terms of providing funds to further negotiations, are different than arrangements with the Treaty Commission, where first nations are required to come up with their own funding to establish their initial claim and pursue it through the process?
Hon. J. Cashore: The relationship the government has in negotiating with the Métis is completely outside the Treaty Commission process. There's no connection whatsoever. It started off as bipartite negotiations, but very much with our encouragement, it has become tripartite, involving the federal government.
W. Hurd: I have a few other questions about the framework agreement. It does become very specific with respect to the whole notion of self-government for the Métis people. I wonder if the minister can advise whether he believes that any settlement or agreement with the Pacific Métis Federation with respect to self-government would in any way reference the self-government model that may flow from the Treaty Commission process. Are we dealing with the Métis with a totally different set of needs and requirements in terms of a self-government model? If I refer the minister's attention to the draft memorandum of understanding, it does contain very specific references to the programs and responsibilities that would flow to the federation or to the Métis by the Crown. I guess what I'm looking for from the minister is the observation that this agreement with the Métis in terms of its self-governance model would be specific to that group and might not necessarily be a self-governance model for other groups in the province.
Hon. J. Cashore: There's no relationship to the self-government models that are emerging from the treaty-making process. This is service delivery; it's really focused on practical applications. With the line ministry, Social Services, there are negotiations underway that are ongoing with regard to these service delivery issues.
W. Hurd: My final set of questions this evening deal with the situation pertaining to the Treaty 8 negotiations with the McLeod Lake band. I wonder if the minister can just clarify the status of that dispute and where we're headed with it, particularly as it relates to Crown timber in the region.
Hon. J. Cashore: The band has chosen to end negotiations and litigate, and therefore negotiations are in abeyance.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could clarify the status of the Crown timber that was under dispute. It is my understanding -- and the minister will correct me if I'm wrong -- that for a brief period of time there was Crown timber outside the boundaries of the original Treaty 8, which was harvested and was the subject of an investigation by both the Ministry of Forests and the Attorney General ministry. It is my understanding that subsequent to that, Crown timber entitlement was rolled into the ongoing treaty negotiations.
I wonder if the minister could clarify for the committee the status of the Crown timber that was under dispute. Is that still a matter of litigation? It is my understanding that the matter was under investigation by both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Attorney General.
Hon. J. Cashore: Some of the Crown timber is under injunction and some is not. The reason the province is a party to the negotiations is to protect British Columbia's interest in matters such as the Crown timber.
W. Hurd: Can the minister confirm that the matter was under investigation by the Ministry of Attorney General with respect to, at that time, the illegal cutting of Crown timber in the area in question?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's our understanding that there was an investigation based on allegations that some timber was cut which should not have been. To be able to get further answers on that, I would have to refer the hon. member to the Attorney General.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell the committee whether the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs played any role in the decision of the Attorney General to drop the case and to have the dispute rolled into ongoing Treaty 8 negotiations? It is my understanding that the ministry investigation had proceeded to the point where consideration was being given to criminal charges of trespass and illegal cutting of Crown timber, and that the case was shelved and the disputed area rolled into the Treaty 8 negotiations. I wonder if the minister can confirm that sequence of events and confirm that the Crown timber in dispute is now the subject of treaty negotiations as opposed to an investigation by the Attorney General ministry.
Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has no relationship to any issue that has to do with the charges or the allegations that have been cited by the hon. member. Given our principle that negotiation is better than litigation, when we were negotiating and when this issue had an opportunity to be resolved through negotiation, taking all circum
[ Page 1835 ]
stances into account, that was an approach that we were consistent with our principles in negotiating, which is better than litigation. When it comes to a matter crossing that line, where it goes back into litigation, then it is a question for the Attorney General.
W. Hurd: It's my understanding that the circumstances of the case are somewhat different from what the minister described -- that the trespass may have been a wilful one and may have resulted from frustration, on the part of the band, with the progress of the Treaty 8 negotiations. It's my further understanding that the Ministry of Forests determined that the Crown timber that was harvested was sold at well below market value, resulting in a loss to the Crown of a significant amount of money.
What I am looking for from the minister is a recognition that if indeed the circumstances did occur as I've described them, the loss to the Crown on the timber that was harvested will in some way be reflected or be the subject of a determination by the Crown to get a fair settlement. There appears to have been a significant loss sustained by the Crown involving enough cubic metres of timber that it came to the attention of the Attorney General and was duly investigated.
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, I want to point out that this is not a Treaty 8 negotiation; it's an adhesion to Treaty 8. It's an existing treaty where a band has been deemed to be within the area covered by Treaty 8. Therefore it's an adhesion.
With regard to the events that the hon. member is talking about, I can't really help him with that.
[7:30]
W. Hurd: I'd certainly settle at this point for an admission or a determination by the minister that he will endeavour to determine the facts of the case and the extent to which the Ministry of Forests identified the illegal cutting of timber, quantified the loss to the Crown and recommended to the Attorney General that an investigation should ensue. Somehow, during the course of all that, the area in dispute became part of what the minister calls the adhesion to Treaty 8. I would just say to the minister that while I respect the desire to achieve consultation instead of litigation, if there has been a loss to the Crown, I would hope that there would be a recognition of that and a determination to protect the assets of the taxpayers in any negotiation with any group.
Hon. J. Cashore: I would like to advise the hon. member that I am asking my deputy minister
J. Weisgerber: I too want to pursue some Treaty 8 issues. I'll come back to McLeod Lake a little bit later on.
First, I'd like to clarify with the minister the position of the province and the ministry with respect to Treaty 8 and the acceptance by the Treaty Commission of a statement of claim from the Treaty 8 tribal council. Obviously it's of considerable interest to me to know whether the Crown considers Treaty 8 to be subject to renegotiation or whether the Crown recognizes the clauses in Treaty 8, along with the other numbered treaties, which in fact extinguish future claims within the claims area.
Hon. J. Cashore: Treaty 8 has withdrawn their statement of claim. I believe they did that after there was a change in their administration, after there had been an election that replaced certain personnel. At the time that the Treaty Commission had accepted that statement of
J. Weisgerber: My understanding is that Treaty 8 has withdrawn with some considerable anger over the unwillingness of the other governments to consider their claim. In fact, when the statement was made that only self-governance would be open to negotiations, the Treaty 8 tribal council, with some degree of resentment or hostility, decided that they would withdraw their claim in protest. It suggests to me, I guess, that the Treaty 8 tribal council executive, at least -- and perhaps members -- hasn't accepted the notion that in fact there isn't an opportunity to open up the treaty to modern-day adjustments, if you like. Can the minister tell me whether or not there has been any dialogue, any correspondence or any sitting down with the people involved in Treaty 8 to try to come to an understanding regarding the position of the province with respect to Treaty 8?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a little back in time now, but to the best of our recollection, we have made our position very clear through correspondence, and we have stated it on many occasions. What I say to Treaty 8 people when this comes up is that when B.C. entered the treaty-making process, it was constantly stated that this was because the land question has not be settled in British Columbia. So the B.C. treaty-making under the B.C. Treaty Commission is not about renegotiating existing treaties with regard to land. It's about trying to come to a settlement on land issues where there is no such settlement. But we felt that they did have a point with regard to the governance issue, and we're ready and willing to engage them on that. We have made that very clear, and I believe there has been correspondence on that.
With regard to the questions of what it would take to get them back to the table and whether there have been meetings or discussions about that, generally it would not be the role of the province to initiate such a discussion. For instance, there have been times when groups have come to talk to me in my office, and I've explained policy to them. No such request, to my knowledge, has ever been made.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, let me say that I wasn't at all suggesting that the minister should go out and try to bring them back to the table. Indeed, I was more concerned, and continue to be troubled, with the fact that Treaty 8 members and other members of the community seem to be unwilling to recognize what the minister stated. That is that treaty negotiations and comprehensive land claims in British Columbia are about land issues, and that issue has been resolved in the northeast part of British Columbia under Treaty 8. I agree with the minister. As the MLA for a good part of that area, I continue to be troubled by the fact that there isn't a recognition of that. I'm wondering more about some dialogue to explain, perhaps in greater detail, the rationale for comprehensive land claims in the rest of British Columbia versus Treaty 8.
Hon. J. Cashore: The nearest that I can recollect is that the previous Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr.
[ Page 1836 ]
Walsh, signed a letter in which he very clearly and explicitly outlined the very points that the hon. member and I are agreeing on, as to why some of their expectations are simply not on.
J. Weisgerber: If there's no confidentiality involved, I would very much appreciate a copy of that correspondence, given the impact on my own constituency.
With respect to McLeod Lake -- which, as the minister has noted, is an adhesion claim to Treaty 8 -- has the province now accepted the argument that bands and tribal councils residing in the Pacific watershed, as opposed to the area to the east of the height of the Rockies, are in the area that was originally proscribed as Treaty 8?
Hon. J. Cashore: I expect that that answer will receive definition in the court case as that litigation goes ahead.
J. Weisgerber: I'm a bit confused by the answer. I can understand that because of a dispute over quantum, this issue has gone to court. There were apparently areas where the negotiators were unable to agree, particularly on access to forest lands, as I understand it. I'm not sure that I'm particularly interested in trying to debate who's right and who's wrong in that particular decision.
Also, pretty clearly, in order for the negotiations to have progressed as far as they did with McLeod Lake, there at one point had to have been an acknowledgement by the province that in fact McLeod Lake was within the area historically laid out as Treaty 8, and that argument goes as to whether the western boundary was the height of the Rockies or was in fact the area within the Arctic watershed. I have to assume that at some point, the provincial Crown must have accepted that argument with respect to the Arctic watershed, and that brings into question not only the communities of Fort Ware and Ingenika but also, I understand, as far west as Dease Lake. So it's a pretty fundamental question; it's not an argumentative one. I am just curious to know: has the province accepted the argument, which I happen to believe they should, that we erred historically on the western boundary of Treaty 8?
Hon. J. Cashore: There was an injunction that was filed tying up the Crown land. That was a factor that brought the province into it because of an interest in seeing that land able to serve the province in the way it should. I believe that another factor, as I've said in the past, is that the main party in an adhesion claim is the federal government, because it comes under federal treaty. The province's role is to be there to protect the provincial interest. I do not accept the statement, although I cannot come up with it chapter and verse -- this goes back to an era prior to mine -- that we must have accepted the definition of the Rocky Mountain Trench as the defining boundary. I really do not believe that is what brought the province into the negotiation, and therefore I don't accept the "therefore" or the ramification that it therefore brings other areas in. I have stated that I think there will be some definition coming out of the court case, if and when it goes to court, but I don't believe that it was what brought the province into that. If I am to stand corrected, I will communicate with the hon. member to that effect.
J. Weisgerber: There was a history of litigation going back to my time as minister, where the province, for many years, actively resisted the claim and argued in opposition to the broader boundaries. But I don't think this is the right forum, and I'm not here to try and make an argument, although as the MLA not only for the northeast part of the area, the area that's traditionally Treaty 8, but also for Ingenika and Fort Ware, I have a very keen interest in how that evolves. I'll pursue the questions that would flow naturally from that at some time when we have made the first resolution.
[7:45]
I'm also intrigued by a statement of intent by the Kelly Lake first nation to file a claim. It's one that I know Mr. Brant has some familiarity with, and it's endorsed by the Treaty 8 Tribal Association. Can the minister tell me whether that has progressed at all? Is there any consideration? Again, we're talking about something which is essentially, in my view, a Métis colony or at least a group of non-status people who travelled in very early times in our history to western Canada. It's an interesting claim if it's to be at all considered by the Treaty Commission or others.
Hon. J. Cashore: As I see it, the step would be that they filed to be recognized as a first nation. To my knowledge, Canada has said no. Therefore that precludes them from ever getting into the treaty process. Hypothetically, if Canada did say yes, then I think they would be in a position to file a statement with the Treaty Commission. It would still remain to be seen whether it would go to the next step or not.
J. Weisgerber: I accept that that's probably the reasonable route for it to proceed, and I was curious to see how the province was in fact dealing with it.
One other issue that's at least treaty-related is something I raised in this House ten days or so ago: the question of the Treaty 3 member charged in British Columbia with hunting infractions and deemed by a provincial court judge to have -- in fact, to enjoy -- aboriginal rights outside of the home treaty area, for want of a better description. My sense is that this has enormous implications for British Columbia, particularly -- as the former Minister of Environment would probably recognize -- for wildlife and wildlife management, and for fisheries and fisheries management. It seems to me that if this precedent is accepted, we could have aboriginal people coming not only from across Canada but from all over North America to enjoy their aboriginal rights along British Columbia's shores. Gosh, we know just from present company how hard that would be on fish stocks if nothing else. So I'm curious to know whether the ministry is involved, along with the Ministry of Environment and the Attorney General ministry, in the consideration of an appeal. Perhaps the minister could give us some sense of the ministry's position.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think there is complete agreement on this; I stand behind the response our Minister of Environment made to the member for Peace River South's query in the House the other day. It is my understanding that the Attorney General is reviewing the situation with a view to protecting important provincial interests. The role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is to remain very closely connected and to assist, in any way we can, in order to ensure that the interest of the province is supported in this matter.
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to enter into these estimates. I have just one area of primary concern, although I do want to raise a couple of very minor secondary issues. Well, I have one that is maybe not so minor, depending on how the minister
[ Page 1837 ]
responds. Let me start with my first question. Is it the opinion of this minister and this ministry that the coastal aboriginal people -- the first nations -- have an inherent right to oysters and oyster harvests?
Hon. J. Cashore: That is a very good question. First of all, in my role as minister I don't view that as an inherent right. It is, however, an issue that could come under consideration with regard to aboriginal rights. It would have to be examined on a site-specific basis with reference to court cases. Again, you'd have to take it from there, based on the specific situation. But I would start off by saying that I don't view that as an inherent right.
G. Wilson: I understand the complexity of jurisdiction over the oyster. One could argue that every variety of clam which is indigenous to coastal waters certainly might be an inherent right. Oysters, however, were introduced to this country -- largely from Japan. They are certainly a recent transplant into the coastal economy, even though many of us have thought that they have been here forever. In fact, they haven't; they were transplanted onto our shores. The degree to which they've been able to take over really shows the adaptability of their species.
My second question, then, concerns the fact that at the moment there is an ongoing dispute between local oyster harvesters and some coastal aboriginal bands with respect to the latter's right to harvest oysters in those areas which are not currently under licence. I want to stress that. We're not talking about accessing or trespassing on a current commercial operation, but about those areas that have been set aside by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans where commercial harvesting or picking of oysters is permitted. But large seine boats are essentially being operated by some first nations who are going in and doing commercial harvesting off those beaches. They've taken the position that they have a right -- an inherent right -- to shellfish and that because the oyster is in a shell, it's a shellfish. I wonder if the minister has some comment with respect to how we might deal with this issue before it escalates and causes very serious problems with people in the industry.
The Chair: Would you mind waiting just a moment, hon. minister? I recognize the hon. member for Alberni on what matter?
G. Janssen: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Janssen: Looking up to the gallery, I ask the House to help us welcome Ian Fraser, the former comptroller for the Legislative Assembly and the man who used to write our paycheques. I ask the House to make him most warmly welcome for his past remembrances.
The Chair: We won't ask why he's here. He watches it all on television.
Hon. J. Cashore: No, I don't have a plan with regard to how to address that. I do recognize the point the hon. member has made about the jurisdictions of both the province, under Crown lands, and the federal government when it comes to oysters. This may well be a situation where we might get some definition from the courts if it persists in moving to that point. One can only hope that if that were to be the case, it wouldn't happen with any unfortunate confrontation.
I know that the Klahoose band on Cortes Island is getting into oyster culture, and it's quite an impressive operation. In that instance, everybody on the island is very, very positive about what they are doing, and what has been achieved there has been a kind of win-win situation.
I want to say too that while I don't recognize it as a right, I think we're probably all together in recognizing that we want to see business opportunities to help people get out of cycles of poverty. It's not something we dismiss lightly on either side of this issue. As I say, the member poses a difficult question, and I haven't given it a lot of thought. But I think we are going to have to put some thought into it.
G. Wilson: I won't pursue it, save to say that I flag the issue for the ministry. It is an issue where there will be conflict, and the conflict will not be exclusive to aboriginal law and aboriginal people. There are aboriginal bands who currently hold licences and who are concerned that oyster spat is not being left in areas where they need it because of what amounts to an unregulated harvest. I'm a hundred percent in favour of anybody, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, who has a commercial licence succeeding in that venture, so that is why I raise the issue.
The second issue that I put to the minister, which is also a rather thorny one, has to do with the extent to which appeals from people in aboriginal bands who live on reserves may be heard through their local elected Member of the Legislative Assembly. I put this forward not to get into a long, protracted philosophical debate, but because here is the problem: within our electoral system every individual, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, has the right to cast a ballot. They do so, and therefore they elect each of us, presumably, or vote for somebody who doesn't get elected but nevertheless is a representative. That representative, when approached by a member on reserve who has concerns about what's going on with respect to governance of that reserve, makes demands of the elected member to go forward and to take issue with it.
I'm talking now about application of moneys, problems associated with licensing, and issues that have to do with matters internal to the band; I'm not talking about licensing relationships with the federal government. At the moment, there appears to be no avenue of appeal for individuals in this position. When I have made representation on behalf of first nations people who have come to me with documented evidence outlining concerns about the way that moneys are being applied, I have approached the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to be told quite curtly that it's none of my business, that I am a provincially elected member and it's none of my business. Yet they have no way of entering and administering matters with respect to aboriginal self-government.
I understand that there is an obvious limit to the ability, or even the desirability, of the provincial government to get in and meddle in what is essentially the band's affairs, and I'm not advocating that. But I am advocating that it may be time we start to consider the implementation of a provincial aboriginal ombudsperson that would be allowed to hear these cases by members of aboriginal bands and be able to interface with both provincial and federal jurisdictions to see that those issues are properly resolved. At the moment there is no appeal. There is no recourse for these individuals, and some of the charges being put forward are serious in nature. I would like to get the minister's thinking on that.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member describes a situation that he is aware of from personal experience, and
[ Page 1838 ]
that is the despair sometimes of being in the role of an MLA's office. People come in, they don't know where to turn, and they say: "You're my elected representative. Can you help me?" And sometimes we end up saying, "Oh, that's a federal issue," or whatever. But sometimes when you meet that person, you really are very much aware of the dilemma and that it just gets passed back and forth, never gets addressed and never has the honour of being taken seriously. I think the idea of an aboriginal ombudsperson is perhaps one way to address that. I think it's worthy of discussion, worthy of thought. I believe that if it were to take place, it would absolutely require major input from the federal government.
There may be other alternatives that could be looked at. Within the aboriginal relations division in our ministry, I would say that the province is involved in that sense, because a lot of the time of people in the aboriginal relations division is taken up with people such as Mr. Brant, who has worked for the federal government, contacting people there and getting the wheels rolling and helping to make a referral so that we do get on with it. In some ways, that has some of the elements of an ombuds role. This is perhaps one of the reasons for some of the frustration that we see when people don't have a place to turn. I haven't put in a lot of time addressing myself to that issue, other than where we've been able to do it off the side of a desk within the ministry.
[8:00]
G. Wilson: I did say there were two issues I'd put out for the minister's notice, and those are the two. I think it is absolutely crucial in our country that every individual, regardless of who they are or what racial background they have, has a right to protection under the Canadian constitution and Canadian law. Where their rights are abridged or removed, or in some way discriminated against -- and I'm talking about serious discrimination in some cases, for reasons well beyond the control of individuals -- that individual has to have right of recourse. If the only right of recourse is through an entrenched band government -- which may, in fact, be the very instrument of discrimination in the first place -- that person has no rights at all.
At that point, as an elected member of this chamber, I believe that I have an obligation and a duty to make sure that those individual rights are looked after, no matter how that should proceed. When you are stonewalled by the federal government, who turns around and says, "Well, the moneys are out there. We wash our hands of it; it's up to that particular band to decide how they apply that money. Don't come to me; it's none of your business," and I see this individual with no recourse whatsoever, to me that's a travesty that should not be permitted. So I do put that out as a possible solution, and I hope the minister will take that suggestion seriously. Unless the minister wants to respond to that, let me move on.
The next issue is also a very important one, and it is one that is going to get us into some possibly sticky legal situations. It has to do with the transfer of taxing authority for property tax to bands with respect to leasehold lands in their jurisdiction. The government undertook last year, I believe, to enter into the transfer of taxation authority to a number of bands. That transfer was done without notice to property owners. In fact, the first time the property owners were notified was when they were sent back the money that they had paid in good faith to the provincial government for property tax and were told to remit the same value or same amount to the aboriginal government. A number of people, of course, took exception to that, for good reason -- one being that they, essentially, are tenants to the aboriginal first nation, and they find that that puts the aboriginal first nation or the band government in a potential conflict where they act as landlord and also taxing authority. So I wonder if the minister might first of all bring us up to date with respect to these transfers. What is happening with it? The minister will know that I have brought this to the attention of their staff before, and I wonder if he could just tell us how things are proceeding at this point.
Hon. J. Cashore: I am advised that where those transfers take place, Canada has the role of leading in the consultation to ensure that those consultations take place, and that is clearly a federal responsibility.
G. Wilson: We've established that it was the federal government's fault they didn't get notified. Fair enough, if that's true.
The process, however, still causes some concern, because, while it may be the federal government's role to notify, the authority that is assigning tax values against property is the B.C. Assessment Authority, which seems to now be working under contract to first nations bands. The B.C. Assessment Authority has a number of properties already under appeal, and we've seen a change in jurisdiction with respect to how the contracts do apply. Could the minister tell us what arrangement has been made with the B.C. Assessment Authority with respect to the transfer of that taxing authority and the degree to which this government still has a role in determining what the rates will be in the application against that property?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs would be the ministry that is responsible for the B.C. Assessment Authority. The hon. member is correct in his description of being under contract in these instances. We do not have this primary information with regard to the answer. We will get that for the hon. member, but we will have to consult with that ministry in order to get that information.
G. Wilson: I understand the issue with Municipal Affairs. Municipal Affairs are equipped to say: "Look, this is a deal that's been set up through the provincial Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the first nations." There is an awful lot of buck-passing being done here, and I don't mean that as a pun on the fact that people are having to pay taxes at reasonably high value. The difficulty that I run into -- and I wonder if the minister might want to talk about the arrangement that has been made -- is my understanding that there is a negotiated arrangement now between a number of bands and the provincial government with respect to the provision of taxing authority to those governments on those leased lands. It was my understanding -- and I could be wrong -- that those arrangements were negotiated through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. At least, that's certainly what I've been led to believe. If that isn't true, then who did negotiate them?
Hon. J. Cashore: That was originally negotiated in 1987 by the Ministry of Finance.
G. Wilson: I've had an opportunity to review that original agreement, and there is limited documentation available on it. Essentially, the movement towards self-taxation authority certainly was in 1987. I understand that Manny Jules and others were actively involved in putting some of that original material together. I've gone through that fairly carefully, but I don't see where there is an assignment right -- if I can use that term, and that's maybe not the right legal term
[ Page 1839 ]
-- where first nations have a right to assign values against lease lands on property that is then subcontracted to the B.C. Assessment Authority with respect to administration. That seems to be what is going on.
There is a jurisdictional question here that we need to look at, because the difficulty is that the first nations band is the landlord; they set the rate at which these leases are now being assigned. If they are also given the right to assess the taxation on it, then I think we find ourselves in a bit of a conflict, because the taxation is going to be determined in large measure by comparable values which are assigned in the original lease, which the first nations band sets. If I'm articulating this clearly, maybe the minister could just nod or respond.
Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that the Assessment Authority is the instrument that assesses the value of the property, and the instrument could be at the political level of the band or the province that sets the tax rate. The deputy of Aboriginal Affairs was the deputy of Finance at the time this was negotiated -- the time of the emergence of the Indian taxation enabling act -- and I believe there was the concomitant federal legislation at that time. This area is very complex, and I do think there is an issue that underlies all the complexities about how this came about, but the member is still seeking to make the point that it's not working as well as it needs to. I think that's where we need to identify that and try to establish where the province has a role in that.
G. Wilson: It's always nice to be able to find the culprit right there -- not that there is anything particularly wrong, exactly. I guess I've only got two questions with respect to this, and then maybe what we can do is leave it. I would greatly appreciate a briefing with whatever officials know what's going on, because I've got many bands in my riding, as you know, and all of them are moving toward this, and there are lease properties on virtually every one of them.
I guess I've got two other questions. With respect to the process -- that is, the degree to which the band is able to set a rate -- there is no right of deferral, because, as I understand it, the legality of the question on referral goes back to the federal Indian Act, which says that the properties are federal. Therefore, because the properties are federal, the province cannot allow deferral of tax. All of us have a right of deferral, as you know, but you can't do it if you're on leased properties. Yet the rate that's assigned does not reflect the inequitous situation, because it's based on a rate that is measured against non-leased land. In other words, the Assessment Authority is using a rate that is comparable to market rate off leased land, even though the leased land is federal in jurisdiction and removes a whole host of rights to the tenant, the leaseholder. One is the right to defer taxes, which causes some considerable grief to people who find that their taxes have escalated tremendously and who are now not able to defer. Now, I've taken this up with Finance, I've taken this up with Municipal Affairs people, and now I'm taking it up with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, just to cover all bases.
Hon. J. Cashore: When the deputy minister calls this hon. member to meet for what I think will be a mutual briefing, part of the argument that will ensue will be over the position that it is not correct to say that the assessment does not take into consideration the factor of it being leased land. You will get an argument that it does. Again, I think this is an area about which I would encourage the hon. member to meet with the deputy, who is going to call you. That will be done very soon.
[8:15]
G. Wilson: Let's leave it at that for now. I only serve notice to the deputy minister to bring your documentation, because I'll certainly bring mine. I can tell you that there have been non-leased lands that have been used as comparable values for setting assessments on leased properties, notwithstanding the fact that that leased property is of a different jurisdiction because of the federal nature. I do appreciate the opportunity to have put these questions to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and I look forward to being contacted for that briefing as our schedules and timetables permit.
M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister is prepared to return to the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. Specifically, I wonder if we could deal with the sections of that agreement that pertain to fisheries matters. Those sections, I think, begin at page 33.
Let me begin by referring the minister to paragraph 6 on page 34, which confirms that any entitlements granted to the Nisga'a will be held communally and may not be alienated. I guess the first question that comes to mind is whether or not the minister is at all troubled that perhaps this could be seen as a continuation of that principle, which I think he found repugnant, where formerly there were constraints on the ability of aboriginal peoples to decide for themselves whether or not they wished to sell, trade, barter, lease or what have you their interest in lands or lands that they occupied, and whether or not a similar argument could be made with respect to their entitlement, whatever it is, obtained under treaty negotiations to have constraints placed on their ability to deal with that entitlement -- constraints, that is, that wouldn't be at play with respect to others involved in a commercial fishery.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm going to ask the hon. member to restate the question, please.
M. de Jong: I'm happy to do that. I know the minister just got rearranged, but I know there's a member in the chamber now who has a couple of questions relative to the Apex situation. Is the minister in a position where he can, without knowing what those questions
R. Thorpe: Minister, could you please give us an overview, from your perspective, of the current status of Green Mountain and the Penticton Indian band situation?
Hon. J. Cashore: The status is that we've gone through quite a progression of experiences between the provincial government and the three bands, primarily the Penticton band. There has been some conflict. Efforts have been made, involving this ministry, to try to resolve that. Those efforts did not succeed. The matters that come under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment have been well canvassed in this House, so I won't deign to speak for him, except to say that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has diligently sought to address issues that were within our purview throughout the events that I'm sure this member is very familiar with.
R. Thorpe: Of course, one of the huge issues for the people of the area is the certainty of road access. I'm just wondering if the minister could share with us what he believes his government is going to do to ensure certainty in road access.
Hon. J. Cashore: This is a matter for the Minister of Transportation and Highways, but I can advise the member
[ Page 1840 ]
that there is a court case that is prepared for this government, and there is a trial date. I would also mention that it's my understanding that the Minister of Employment and Investment, if he's free of duties in the House, will be travelling to Penticton tomorrow to meet with parties.
R. Thorpe: The minister mentioned that a court date has been set. Could you share that setting of the court date with us?
Hon. J. Cashore: I stand corrected. We are waiting for a date to be set.
R. Thorpe: Thank you very much for clarifying that. Could the minister indicate if the government is aggressively pursuing a court date, or is the government taking its time in getting it to the courts?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's my understanding that the Attorney General ministry has asked for an early court date.
M. de Jong: I'll try now to restate my question relative to the fishery sections of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. I guess my point was this: I have always been troubled by the notion that lands aboriginal peoples live
In his earlier comments, earlier today and last week, I think part of what the minister was saying is that he shares that concern and that part of this process, part of vesting lands in Nisga'a central government, vesting title with them, was to provide them with the means to control their own destiny, to shed that veil of paternalism that has cloaked aboriginal peoples for so long.
When I look at a provision like that which is contained in paragraph 6, which says that fishery entitlements will be held communally and may not be alienated, the suggestion there, at least, is that with respect to fisheries, that paternalism continues. The ability for the Nisga'a to transfer or sell the entitlements, whatever they are under this agreement, is being constrained in a way that if you or I were in possession of those entitlements, they would not be. Am I off in left field, or do I read this section correctly? It seems to be saying that with respect to the right to sell or alienate those interests, the Nisga'a don't enjoy the rights that others might naturally expect to enjoy.
Hon. J. Cashore: No, it's not paternalistic. Given that this is a negotiated agreement-in-principle involving three parties, it is not paternalistic. It was my understanding that the Nisga'a, in arriving at this position, have taken the position that they wish to be able to sell fish but not sell the entitlement. It's an economic decision. It relates to the resource that again, from their perspective, is defining with regard to the river and the relationship to the river. No, it's not paternalistic; it is an economic decision.
M. de Jong: I have trouble arriving at an understanding of how this provision operates to benefit either the government of Canada or the government of British Columbia. It is certainly a limiting provision. Will the minister agree with me to that extent -- that this is a limiting provision of a right that other fishers would enjoy?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a different right. The hon. member will have to be satisfied with his definitions as he sees them. I come at it from a different perspective. It's a different right, a negotiated treaty right, and at this stage an agreement-in-principle. He characterizes it in a different way than I do.
M. de Jong: The minister may be absolutely correct, but I'm not sure from what he said that I understand the difference. What I have said, the proposition that I have made to him, is that the rights, the entitlements to participate in the fishery that this agreement-in-principle purports to grant to the Nisga'a, are limited in the sense that they restrict their right to sell or transfer their entitlement. Does the minister agree with me that far?
Hon. J. Cashore: I agree that when you choose to compare land and entitlement, there are two different sets of solutions that have come through these negotiations. The one that pertains to fish is related to the three parties, but certainly the Nisga'a's position on how the Nisga'a wish to make use of that resource. As it is very clear there, it is to retain the entitlements communally but to be able to sell fish individually.
M. de Jong: I don't want the minister to be hung up on the analogy I drew with land. I certainly agree that these are different commodities. It is different currency, if you will.
What the minister seems to be saying is that this provision has been included at the insistence of the Nisga'a themselves. If that is the case, one can't help but come to the conclusion that the Nisga'a themselves want to bind their own hands and don't have confidence in their own ability to maintain this entitlement in a responsible manner. Otherwise, on what basis would they agree to terms that would restrict their ability to deal with that entitlement?
Hon. J. Cashore: Again, to the contrary, this is an indication that the Nisga'a do have confidence in their ability to conduct that fishery within the parameters that are negotiated here. I think that if we reflect on this, we can always find a way of coming at it negatively. But I don't see that negativity there. I don't see this as restricting. I see this as enabling. In this particular resource, I see that this has emerged in a way that recognizes the importance of maintaining it as a collective resource throughout time. I think that is what is stated in the agreement-in-principle, and I don't see any negative in that whatsoever.
[8:30]
M. de Jong: I don't know how the minister can honestly call this provision enabling, when clearly it is included to restrict what would otherwise naturally be a right of the Nisga'a. I heard the minister speak earlier this evening in response to a question I posed, where he said: "Look, the ultimate defence to all of these questions" -- in the area that we were canvassing -- "rests with the fact that the Nisga'a will have self-government, that they will elect their representatives, and those representatives will make decisions governing the interests of the Nisga'a people."
They won't be making decisions about what to do with this fishery entitlement because they won't have that jurisdiction. It's not provided. Given his earlier statements, I'd like to know how the minister responds to that?
[ Page 1841 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Again, on the contrary, the Nisga'a will be making decisions about this because they will be involved in voting on the ratification. Therefore this will be one of the factors. If it is a concern to individual Nisga'a, they will have an opportunity at that time to express that.
M. de Jong: I know that the minister has been sincere throughout this debate, but I hope he's not asking me to be satisfied with a defence of this particular clause that says if individual Nisga'a are unhappy with it, they have the opportunity to scuttle the deal. I think he and I both know that that's not likely to happen. This is not the type of provision which, in and of itself, this deal is going to live or die on.
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a bit of an academic discussion. To the best of my knowledge, I have not heard this issue raised in any degree by the Nisga'a. Now, I may stand corrected on that. When the standing committee meets, we may hear some comment on that coming from first nations people or perhaps from Nisga'a people. I will be interested if that is the case. The only concern that I have heard expressed about this has been from non-Nisga'a people, and so I do not have information that would indicate that there is a groundswell of concern emanating from that community around this. I think I would have heard about that if that were the case.
M. de Jong: I think I understand what the minister is saying. He should realize -- and I think he does -- that not having been part of the negotiation process, the impetus for the inclusion of many of these clauses is not known to us. That's why this exercise is so valuable.
Maybe I could ask him this, though. The message seems to be that this provision has been included at the insistence of the Nisga'a. I think that's what I derived from his comments this evening. That being the case, one wouldn't logically expect a great deal of protest from the Nisga'a themselves. Having accepted that, I return to my earlier proposition, which is that as a non-Nisga'a person, I do see it as a continuation of a form of protectionism, if you will, that doesn't exist elsewhere. I'm not aware of other allocations, other fisheries entitlements, that are bound in this way, that are restricted in the ability of the licence holder -- if that's what we can call this -- to deal with that licence the way the Nisga'a would be. From the perspective of a non-Nisga'a person who is looking to this agreement and the treaty that will arise out of it as the mechanism by which those restrictions, those differentiations, are going to disappear, it disappoints me that in this particular area it's not disappearing; it's going to be perpetuated.
Hon. J. Cashore: Well, hon. Chair, I'm not sure that I understood all of that, but this is not protectionism. This is not how I understand the Nisga'a have come to this issue. I think it's out of respect for the relationship that has existed throughout many, many centuries with regard to the return of the fish. There is every year, as I understand it, a time when the Nisga'a people will make decisions with regard to how to deal with their allocation, how that will be managed. I think that one can put as positive a spin on this as is available.
With regard to the fact that here is a manifestation of the Nisga'a relationship with a sustainable resource, the Nisga'a are a people who have won awards for their relationship to that fishery on the Nass and have actually dedicated dollars towards the conservation and the enhancement of the river, which will be a benefit not only to the Nisga'a. I think that what is reflected here is something extremely positive.
M. de Jong: It's why our relationship -- the minister and us on this side -- is so complementary. He can put the positive spin on the matter and rely on us to put the negative spin on whatever clause we happen to be discussing.
Something the minister said struck me as interesting and sort of gives rise to my next series of questions. I think that when the standing committee goes around the province -- not to anticipate, but I've heard this during my travels around the
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
It becomes a little more problematic when we take the next step -- which is the protection of an aboriginal commercial fishery -- when people ask themselves: "Where is the historical basis? Where is the spiritual or cultural link between aboriginal people and a commercial-based fishery?" So when you make that leap you start to lose some people at that point.
When you take the next step, which is contemplated in clause 15 on page 35 of the agreement -- and given everything the minister has just said about
Hon. J. Cashore: I would say that the hon. member has used the words "spiritual link" about 15 times in his last comments. I did not use that word. He is taking those words from my comments when I said there is this traditional relationship with the fish. I don't mind him using those words; I don't particularly have a problem with that. To me, it's just that it's based more on what their history and culture is. I don't personally bring in the spiritual dimension at this point, although I'm sure that if Joe Gosnell were here he'd probably agree with the hon. member with regard to that characterization.
I think we're arguing some fairly esoteric points here. I could apply that argument about paternalism back to the characterization that this member made about this clause. What's wrong with having the self-determination to be able to decide you want to contract out? What's wrong with that? I don't think that's in contrast to or in denial of any type of a spiritual or traditional link.
One of the things we celebrate about first nations is their adaptability. Cultural survival has been aided and abetted by a remarkable and uncanny adaptability to change that was not visited upon them at their desire but by outside factors invading their existence. Adaptability is a very hopeful and vibrant
[ Page 1842 ]
part of the first nations part of the Canadian fabric of society, and I see it manifested here. They're saying: here's where we come as a group of aboriginal people negotiating a relationship in which we have the right to decide that. It's not some missionary deciding it; it's not some Hudson's Bay factor deciding it; it's us deciding it. So I see no conflict here whatsoever with regard to their spirituality or my understanding of tradition or the prospects for this all working out really well.
M. de Jong: If I were being mischievous, I would try to turn that statement back on the minister and say: "Well, if the logic he would now purport to apply to clause 15 is valid, why is it less valid when I try to apply it to clause 6?" I suspect that we could go in circles on that point. Nonetheless, maybe what we've agreed to here is that there is something of an inconsistency on that point between clause 6 and clause 15.
Now, to answer the point and to pose the question that I think arises out of it from what the minister has just said, the argument the public hears when the Nisga'a or aboriginal peoples make their pitch for protected and guaranteed access to the fishery -- and it's one that has been made time and time again for many years -- is the personal link between the aboriginal nation, the aboriginal individual
I think that for all the validity of what the minister has said about wanting to preserve that absolute freedom in a market-driven
[8:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: Well, I don't think it will lead to difficulties with other negotiations. I think, again, when we look at other negotiations, we're going to see just how different they are, because this is such a unique situation with regard to the Nisga'a relationship to that river in that area of the province. I don't know of situations where that would be repeated anywhere else in the province, because those demographics aren't repeated.
Just thinking for a moment about this part about a personal link, I don't believe for one moment that the Nisga'a would ever cease to have their personal link with regard to fish. In the time that I have spent up on the North Coast, I've known first nations people, just as non-first nations people, who make their living in the fishing industry. If they find themselves working in a white-collar job for some reason, the spring comes and there's something missing from their lives. They start wanting to get into readying a boat and getting back into it.
At the same time, I don't see any inconsistency between clauses 6 and 15 whatsoever. I see no inconsistency between a group of people that would negotiate a settlement that would provide for the possibility of some contracting out. Again, what would be the downside of recognizing that the Nisga'a might be in a position where they are hiring, in a very limited way, I would expect, people of other ethnic backgrounds who happen to also be Canadians? I think that's a really wonderful part of the business opportunity that relates to this in terms of what this is going to produce.
M. de Jong: I will make this admission to the minister: because we are speculating, I am poorly placed and poorly equipped to argue with anything he said, and ultimately we'll watch to see what happens. I will suggest one thing: he is equally poorly placed to make comments about what might happen with respect to the extent to which these contracting-out provisions are utilized by the Nisga'a. His idea may be based on his extensive contacts with them, but ultimately, I think we will have to wait and see. I certainly have no hesitation signalling to the minister that the interplay between 6 and 15 trouble me, for the reasons that I have said.
When this agreement was first being signalled, there was much discussion
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no. As stated in the document from Russell and DuMoulin that I'm holding in my hand, it is not a perpetual statutory entitlement. There's no such thing.
M. de Jong: If I refer to paragraph 17 of the agreement, where the harvest agreement is said to: "be for a term of 25 years and be replaceable at the discretion of Nisga'a central government every 15 years for a further 25 years," maybe the minister can tell me how this agreement ends.
Hon. J. Cashore: Like any renewable tenure, it's subject to an act of parliament. The only time I would ever envisage it ending would be by a unilateral act of parliament. The salmon harvest agreement is really no different in law than the replaceable tenures created under the provincial Forest Act. In a sense, this is being referred to as a fish TFL, and no one has ever suggested that these forest interests are protected -- again, to quote Russell and DuMoulin -- "as if they were constitutionally entrenched." With regard to this fish TFL, the writing of the member for Richmond-Steveston is stating that it's as if it were constitutionally entrenched. But we don't hear the same complaint coming from any quarters, that I'm aware of, that our forest TFLs are constitutionally entrenched, yet there's really no difference between the two.
M. de Jong: Well, here is the author of apparently the misstatements or misinterpretation of the provisions. I think the point is made: for all practical purposes, what is the difference? If the Nisga'a choose to exercise the right to renew as is set out in the agreement-in-principle, it continues, absent the legislative intervention that the minister contemplated. Is that a correct synopsis of what exists here?
[ Page 1843 ]
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, and that's no different with a TFL.
M. de Jong: Just below the provision that we've been dealing with, paragraph 19 on page 36, is the provision which emphasizes that this harvest agreement is not to be construed as a land claims agreement or as creating any treaty rights. I wonder, though, if the minister has received advice as to whether or not it creates aboriginal rights within the meaning of that term and its application to constitutional law in this country.
Hon. J. Cashore: No.
M. de Jong: Was that "No, I've received no advice," or "No, the advice I've received is that it doesn't create any aboriginal rights"?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's the latter. It doesn't create any aboriginal rights.
M. de Jong: One of the provisions in this
Hon. J. Cashore: This is consultation; it's provision for consultation.
M. de Jong: That's fine. I'm not arguing the substantive contents insofar as what's being dealt with here, but the point is that this now appears to represent a constitutional guarantee to consultation.
Hon. J. Cashore: No, it's not in the constitution. It's a treaty right to consult.
M. de Jong: With the greatest respect to the minister, it seems distinguishable, by virtue of how it is presented in this agreement, from the provisions dealing with the harvest agreement. If that is the minister's position, maybe he can briefly provide me with the basis on which he reached that conclusion. The harvest agreement is specifically referred to in paragraph 19. Paragraph 91 deals with something different.
Hon. J. Cashore: That's one of the issues that Canada agreed to. They're responsible for fish, and they agreed to have that consultation right there in the treaty. Canada has the lead role on fish. Canada deemed it as appropriate. Canada also has the responsibility for international issues, again agreeing that it behooves them to have that treaty right to consult.
M. de Jong: I hadn't actually got to the point where I was asking where the agreement or the impetus for the inclusion of the clause existed. I'm not sure that I have an answer yet to the original question, which is: by virtue of how this section is presented, doesn't it represent a constitutionalized entitlement to be consulted whenever the issue of salmon is being discussed internationally?
Hon. J. Cashore: This gets at an issue that has sometimes resulted from some discussions, which have taken place on a wide range of areas and which, I think, have created a little confusion around section 35 and the concept of entrenchment. I have heard the phrase used that a treaty is entrenched within the constitution. It's not really right. A treaty is protected by the constitution, so this is not an entrenchment per se. Section 35 of the constitution recognizes and affirms aboriginal rights and rights set out in treaties. Section 35 does not entrench the treaty itself.
[9:00]
M. de Jong: What I think the minister is prepared to concede, however, is that the right -- call it a procedural right, if you will -- stipulated in clause 91 on page 48 of the agreement-in-principle has a higher level of protection or is different from the right contained within the harvest agreement. Does the minister agree with that proposition?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, it is different.
M. de Jong: Paragraph 89 on page 47 deals with the question of the transfer of moneys that will be provided to the Nisga'a central government so that it can increase its capacity in the form of licences and participate in the commercial fishery. There's actually a figure set out there, $11.5 million, a significant sum by any standard. I'll begin by asking the minister to explain what the rationale was for including that section above and beyond the provisions of the harvest agreement.
Hon. J. Cashore: This is additional economic opportunity.
M. de Jong: That's the shortest sales job I've been subjected to, hon. Chair.
Just to get a couple of the preliminaries out of the way on this point: is the $11.5 million included in or in addition to the $190 million that will be transferred to the Nisga'a?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's in addition to the amount the member cited, and it's my understanding that it's 50-50 cost-shared between B.C. and Canada.
M. de Jong: So the $190 million is subject to the original cost-sharing agreement, and the $11.5 million is subject to a different formula, a 50-50 formula.
Hon. J. Cashore: I'm sorry, I was listening to the answer before I heard the question. Could I just have the question again?
M. de Jong: I just want to confirm that the $190 million is subject to the cost-sharing formula that was in place, negotiated between the two levels of government, and that the $11.5 million is a 50-50 split between the federal and provincial government.
Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you. That enables me to answer the question yes.
M. de Jong: The minister has heard this from others, and it is easy to criticize agreements of this sort and to tell people what is wrong with them and where they fall short. The minister in the past has challenged his detractors to offer an alternative and to suggest how this could be done better.
In the case of the fishery, the response he has received in many cases goes something like this: if you have chosen to
[ Page 1844 ]
provide the Nisga'a with $11.5 million to allow them to acquire licensing rights to fish, why not simply adopt that approach in total? Why not say today that at today's market prices and licensing prices, we agree with the Nisga'a: "We agree that you are entitled to a percentage of the commercial fishery allocation, and we are going to provide you with the means to acquire that entitlement on the open market. What you do with it from this point forward is up to you. You will have utter and complete discretionary authority to purchase more or to sell; but it will be up to you. We will provide you, as federal and provincial governments, with the means to acquire 25 percent of the market share of the entitlement -- or 30 percent, whatever that figure might be." Why wasn't that appropriate in the mind of the minister?
Hon. J. Cashore: Every treaty is a combination of factors. The combination of factors in this case produced this result. The primary discussion involved Canada and the Nisga'a on this, with a very keen interest on the part of the province. I dare say that as we look at other treaties we will find situations very similar to what the hon. member has just described. Again, I think we have to look at each situation with regard to its own merits. This was the combination of factors that has resulted in the agreement-in-principle.
M. de Jong: In fairness to the minister, I think there are a lot of issues dealt with by this agreement-in-principle where I might not take issue, and I might actually agree with him. But we are talking here about a pretty fundamental principle: the principle by which you allocate to an aboriginal group the ability to undertake that activity which they wish to undertake.
There are a couple of ways you can do that. One of the ways you can do it is to say that we are going to provide you with the means to become involved to the level that we agree you should be involved at, but having done that, you are on your own. You will manage it; you will be subject to the same regulations and the same environmental constraints. All of the things that apply to limit the ability of fishers in this province to make a living will apply to you. We're going to get you there. We're going to make sure that you're participating, in 1996 or 1997, at a level that we have deemed appropriate through the negotiating process. But after that you're on your own -- no special status.
The other way, or one of the other ways, to do it is by virtue of this, in effect, perpetual -- I shouldn't use that word because the minister will take issue with that -- harvest agreement, which guarantees an entitlement based on this contractual arrangement or treaty entitlement. So there are two very different ways to go about this.
I have to say to the minister that by virtue of how it's been dealt with in this agreement, there is a signal being sent about the preference that this provincial government or the federal government has. Maybe the minister is going to stand up and say that this wasn't the provincial government's preference but was the best deal they could get and that with the federal negotiators viewing this as just another form of currency that was really of no concern to them, the provincial negotiating team didn't receive any assistance from the federal negotiators in pursuing the line or approach they favoured. Maybe the minister is going to tell me that. But I'm very interested to know the extent to which this is the approach that the provincial negotiators favoured.
Hon. J. Cashore: I answered, in part, in my previous answer. So again, I'm not going to get into a lot of circular stuff here. But I just want to say that I don't in any way want to disassociate myself from this agreement-in-principle. It's a good agreement-in-principle. The fisheries considerations, in all their different aspects, are sound and solid.
This kind of allocation -- again, remember it's an exchange of aboriginal rights for the clear definition of treaty rights -- is a heck of a lot of an improvement over what we see in the AFS on the Fraser, where you could have people of first nations the only ones out on the river fishing commercially. You can actually have that circumstance under the AFS. We know how unacceptable that is to so many people.
But here on the Nass you would not see that happening. You would see instead a capped allocation, based on negotiations. At that time in history, when the population of the Nisga'a reach a certain critical point where the amount would actually go over and above what this allocation is, that won't happen, because this is a negotiation. It's about give and take. Again, I think the hon. member disagrees with this.
But there is a component of this that has to do with the fact that the Nisga'a are a population very closely related to that river and that there are very few non-Nisga'a people in that region. Their relationship to the river was a factor of great significance in the negotiations. That's a very unusual set of circumstances. Yet in that particular case, it was important in being able to come up with what I think is a very good set of arrangements with regard to the fishery.
M. de Jong: Well, except for the very last part of the minister's statement -- I'm not sure what part of what he said he thinks I would disagree with -- I certainly don't quarrel with the description the minister has offered about the environment and the links between the Nisga'a and the Nass River.
May I ask the minister, with respect to paragraph 89, what the timetable for payment of the $11.5 million is?
Hon. J. Cashore: That timetable is to be negotiated.
M. de Jong: With the minister's indulgence, I wonder if we could return to the matter we were discussing just before the dinner break. I will prompt him by suggesting that he had some comments he was prepared to make regarding the situation at Tsatsu Shores and the Tsawwassen Indian band.
Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the situation with Tsatsu Shores and the Tsawwassen Indian band, I want to start off by saying that I do have a very positive relationship with the federal minister. I think he's a good minister. I think he's doing a good job, and I know it's a much more difficult job than mine, because he has to manage such a variety of situations. I almost have to say that, because some of my comments are going to be somewhat, as it is sometimes characterized, bashing of the federal government.
I don't think the federal government has carried out its responsibilities in this situation in the most creative and useful way that was available to them. As I said before the break, the federal minister advised me in my conversation with him last week that a mediator has been brought in. I haven't heard how that process is going, and I don't know the timetable on it. I think it's extremely unfortunate that this sort of in-your-face relationship has developed, when obviously that wasn't in anybody's interest.
[9:15]
[ Page 1845 ]
In fairness, I want also to say that I think sometimes the long arm of
I just point out that I cannot for the life of me understand -- even where there may have been some legality that said, for instance, that the federal government has a right to authorize going ahead with a certain construction in lieu of certain consultations -- why it would not behoove the parties to do those consultations, in the interests of goodwill and building what would become a model for the post-treaty type of relationship that we hope would come to exist. You know, perhaps we can all say, "Well, maybe there's something I could have done better," but there is a need for that kind of small-p political will in order to enable that to happen.
I also point out that I think now, with that sewage construction issue, the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development finds itself cross-pressured with the federal Fisheries department, and that, too, is kind of an unnecessary and unfortunate situation.
All I can say is that I really do have a lot of hope for this mediation process. I think it's in the interests of all parties to do that, and I just hope that the municipal elections, and the federal election coming up don't politicize this to the point that it becomes difficult for the parties to do the reasonable thing.
F. Gingell: Could the minister advise the committee on who the mediator is, and what the terms of reference will be?
Hon. J. Cashore: No. This is something I was advised of by the federal minister whose responsibility it is, in relationship to the Tsawwassen band. I assume that if that is happening, it's being discussed between the band and the municipality.
M. de Jong: Given what the minister has said about the destructive nature of these sorts of disputes, I think he quite validly points out the fact that no one's interests are served when this takes place. I wonder whether he sees the need for a mechanism by which it's possible to head these sorts of disputes off at the pass, as it were. The member for Delta South has, I think, made the point in the past that this is the kind of dispute that is going to have the potential for taking place in communities right across the province, and that it is an incident over a laudable principle -- that is, that aboriginal peoples achieve a greater level of self-determination and economic self-sufficiency.
Yet part and parcel of that is the fact that they will, in some instances, be viewed suspiciously by neighbours who have, rightly or wrongly, grown accustomed to them being somewhat docile on the reserves they call home. We've all watched and lamented the deterioration in the relationship between the Tsawwassen band and the local civic government. We're engaged in mediation now, and that, I suppose, is a good thing at the stage we're at. But is there a means by which these types of disputes, which have the potential for existing in communities right across the province, can be dealt with far sooner and far more effectively than we've seen happen on the Tsatsu Shores?
Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. It is not an area of responsibility of the provincial government. That's not ducking the issue. I think that the responsibility falls on all of us in the community, no matter what our relationship or role happens to be.
What I lament is the fact that the stories that don't get told are the success stories where exactly that kind of cooperation is taking place. I sincerely lament that, because when we don't hear what is working well, the public is left with a view of only these conflicts being publicized, and that becomes their understanding of the status quo. That is not the status quo; in fact, it's the other way around. There are far more examples of cooperation and of people sitting down and being good neighbours. I think the treaty process seeks to facilitate that, and hopefully it does.
But it is true that there are those cases that become very high profile, and in the mind of the general public often they are seen almost as people in a state of siege, which is not the case. There are a great many disputes where the parties have come up with a process and have addressed it together as adults and have come up with good results. It's unfortunate that we don't see more of that highlighted.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
F. Gingell: I spent many years on a federal commission that owns and has title to substantial pieces of real estate in the Fraser Valley. My role on that commission started in 1975, and I'd like to suggest to the minister that in 1975, as an agency of the federal government, we weren't interested in listening to anybody. We were a major landowner in Surrey and in Richmond. As the 12 years I spent on the commission went by, we moved from recognizing that as a federal agency we could do what we wanted when we wanted, to recognizing that it was not only in our interests to jointly plan the development of our properties with the municipalities, but there clearly was a need to be open and deal openly with local communities.
Perhaps the example that sits in my mind best is that towards the end of my time on the commission we were asked to stockpile very large quantities of sand for the purpose of the third runway. We decided that the appropriate place to stockpile that sand was on Steveston Island, and we would move it off by truck. An uproar ensued. You can appreciate that the commission had the right to do whatever it wanted. But we recognized that in the late 1980s that wasn't on, so in the end the sand was removed by way of barge, and alternative plans were laid.
It seems to me that if we're going to find solutions for these problems in the 1990s -- it's not only aboriginal issues, it is all issues between federal, provincial and municipal
[ Page 1846 ]
I'd like to suggest to the minister that in the process of these treaty negotiations -- where at this moment in time the aboriginal first nations are using their position as the child of the federal government to enable themselves to move ahead on whatever particular development proposal on their lands they wish -- this might be a good time to try to bring in some arrangement whereby local participation and consultation, entering through exactly the same kind of procedures that a non-aboriginal citizen has to, even though one may have to work out a workable deal on what will bring closure, would be well worthwhile. I worry that we will have a series of enclaves around the province, which are reserve band lands within municipalities, that are going to be the subject of a great deal of tension within the communities if their plans don't tie into the communities' plans.
One must recognize that in the Tsatsu Shores it was an Indian band situation. In my opinion, what brought the issue to a head was not the Tsatsu Shores development but a plan that became public knowledge and that suggested there would be real estate developments on the Tsawassen Indian band land there that would hold 12,000 residents. That's an area of land that you can see as you come to the ferry terminal, Mr. Minister, and I'm sure you've come in many times. That would be a gigantic development that would have dramatic effects on the community, on our transportation infrastructure, on our libraries, on our schools, on our water supply and on every aspect. It would be increasing the community of Tsawwassen by 50 percent.
Real estate development in Tsawwassen is not something new for the Tsawwassen Indian band. They were the developers who sold in fee simple the very desirable residential properties known as the Village. They subsequently extended the Village on its northern boundary to the edge of the bluff with a new development that is called Stahaken. The Stahaken development is long-term leases; the land was actually sold. So the Tsawwassen Indian band has gone through residential developments within the community which have been accepted and welcomed, and which have not caused any problems.
But I do get worried that the situation which has developed at Tsatsu Shores is just symbolic of what can happen in the future. So I really would press the issue that if some process can be brought into the treaty negotiations whereby real estate developments will be subject to the same processes and procedures as non-aboriginal ones, it would, I think, be a major trump card in bringing some sense of security or ease to the non-aboriginal community.
[9:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: I want to thank the hon. member for that contribution and just say that one of the bottom-line requirements of the provincial government in treaty-making is that there be jurisdictional certainty achieved between municipalities and regional districts and first nations. Bear in mind that there will be no more Indian reserves in the post-treaty circumstances, and the fact of that land becoming underlain by Crown title will afford a much more creative opportunity to address dispute situations.
The suggestion about the need for dispute resolution is, I think, more often in the context of a band that is not in the treaty-making process. I do know that the Tsawwassen band is in the treaty process, but I would just point out that around the province there are a number of joint ventures involving bands where those factors of the interface between the municipality and the first nation have worked out very well.
I would just point out the one that has recently been announced in Kamloops. My understanding is that that is proceeding in a neighbourly way. I hope that I'm not wrong about that; I believe that I'm right about it. It's a win-win for the community. One of the things that will emerge from urban-based treaty-making, I think, is a set of circumstances where, through negotiation, you won't be able to have a situation like we've had at Tsatsu Shores, because of that jurisdictional certainty being negotiated in a reasonable and agreeable way, recognizing that people want to be good neighbours.
F. Gingell: It is a subject that I haven't asked the question on before, but I presume that no Indian reserve lands as presently constituted are in the agricultural land reserve. I imagine that the federal government wouldn't allow the province to place a charge or a restriction on the use of the land. If any of the Indian reserve land would lose its current status and become clear title land that would normally be within the agricultural land reserve -- I'm sure there must be many properties up through the Fraser Valley -- does the province intend to include those properties within the reserve?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member raises a very important policy issue that has not yet been worked out. We'd welcome this hon. member's contribution to the discussion on that, given the experience in the farmland area, which the member represents.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, my colleague from Chilliwack has some questions pertinent to his riding for the minister.
B. Penner: Taking up where my colleague left off, I wonder if the minister could clarify for me the relationship between lands contained within the agricultural land reserve and native land claims.
Hon. J. Cashore: In addition to the answer I just gave, that would be subject to negotiation -- how that would all play out. The province, in having a responsibility to represent the provincial interest and therefore the interests of the people living in the region, would need to have very carefully consulted with the hon. member and the people he represents, to hear their views on that so that those views are reflected in the negotiation.
B. Penner: I take it from the minister's comments that it is still an open question as to what happens to land in the agricultural land reserve, once treaty negotiations get underway.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, it is an open question. But let's recognize that it's a very hypothetical question, since in the area he is referring to, I think most of the agricultural land is in private hands. Private land is not on the table; therefore it is a non-issue in that instance.
If there are instances where there is Crown land in a claim area and also in the reserve, I can say as a pretty safe bet that the province will be seeking to maintain the integrity of the ALR.
B. Penner: I would support the minister in that endeavour.
I'd like to move the focus to the status of the Sto:lo nation land claim. I understand from articles in newspapers that the
[ Page 1847 ]
Sto:lo have now filed notice of their intention to enter into negotiations with the province of British Columbia and the federal government. I wonder if the minister could advise the House as to what stage the Sto:lo are at in their treaty negotiation process.
Hon. J. Cashore: They're in stage 2, the readiness stage. They have filed their statement of intent, which was stage 1.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether any discussions have actually started.
Hon. J. Cashore: No. Those discussions won't really get started until they get to the next stage, which is developing a framework agreement that sets out the agendas and the topics for stage 4. So they are not there yet.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could provide the House with some indication as to when that is likely to occur. When will we get to that framework established? When can the people in Chilliwack expect the negotiations to begin or the discussions to start?
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't know the answer to that. I can't speak for the Sto:lo, and it is a tripartite thing. I don't believe, once everything is in order, that the province would have any reason to want to hold it up.
B. Penner: As the minister is probably aware, one of the key concerns in Chilliwack, having to do with native land claims generally, relates to the lands at CFB Chilliwack. As almost everyone is aware, the federal government has announced its intention to close the Canadian forces base at Chilliwack. The lands there comprise, I believe, in excess of 200 acres at the primary site.
It's my understanding that the Sto:lo have indicated in their initial position that they are claiming the land which comprises CFB Chilliwack. Because of the economic loss the closure of the base represents to Chilliwack, numerous efforts have been made, and are ongoing, by the municipal government to try to find private investors to fill the gap that will be created once the base is finally closed. Of course, the uncertainty about the status of the land -- vis-�-vis the Sto:lo negotiations -- poses a handicap for the municipal government in trying to attract private investment. That is why people in Chilliwack who I have spoken with express some concern about the time lines, and about the timeliness generally, of these negotiations.
My question to the minister basically seeks clarification. I think I know what his answer will be, but just for the record, I'd like to get clarification for the people in Chilliwack who I have to deal with. That question is this: is the province waiting until the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle becomes a final and lasting treaty before completing other agreements? To state it differently, is the province holding off getting into detailed discussions with the Sto:lo, pending final approval of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, and the province isn't holding anything up with the Sto:lo.
M. de Jong: Back to the Nisga'a.
Interjection.
M. de Jong: Hardly. I'll be greatly offended, hon. Chair, if the record doesn't reflect that remark. To suggest that I am engaged in some sort of destructive
If I can direct the minister's attention to the section of the AIP that deals with wildlife, my questions are fairly specific -- and brief, I hope. Beginning at page 49, I think the upshot of this section of the agreement is the conferring of, I'll use the term, "special rights," upon the Nisga'a in the wildlife management area.
That area certainly includes Nisga'a lands. I think that in some cases it extends beyond Nisga'a lands, and that gives rise to perhaps the first of two difficulties. It's one we've touched on in respect of other areas in the agreement. Where there are overlapping interests, and where this agreement-in-principle purports to grant special rights to the Nisga'a and does so in the wildlife management area, to what extent have the minister and the government taken account of the fact that in bestowing those rights on the Nisga'a, they are likely going to be confronted by similar claims from other aboriginal groups wanting, at a minimum, I presume, the same?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's all a matter of what is subject to negotiation and what will achieve the certainty of an agreement that bodes for a better future for all parties concerned. Therefore, to say to what extent that is going to apply to various other
M. de Jong: I think in this case it's perhaps a little more specific than that in that we are dealing with the allocation of scarce resources -- wildlife, in this case -- and this agreement confers a certain entitlement on the Nisga'a. In areas where we already know there are competing interests and only X number of bears and X number of fox and other fur-bearing animals, it's conceivable, at least, that the government's ability to negotiate with these other bands has been compromised to the extent that this wildlife management area extends beyond the Nisga'a lands. I suppose there are all sorts of good reasons for doing that. Wildlife does not respect artificial boundaries imposed as a result of treaty negotiations, and that is certainly the case. There are limited numbers of animals out there, and when it comes time to commence negotiations with these other groups, I'm anticipating some difficulty.
Hon. J. Cashore: The allocations are based on the best available data, but again, I would not use the term "confers an entitlement" in quite the same way. What it really does with an allocation is deal with the fact that under the present status quo situation we have the completely unacceptable and problematic circumstance where we have no reliable way of keeping track of harvests, with ambiguous and ill-defined aboriginal rights. By being able to have clarity and definition of treaty rights with the negotiated and agreed-upon efficacy of the Ministry of Environment in setting limits, we are dealing with percentages within a whole. Where those other first nations would be involved, that would have to fit in with that, so that the ethic of conservation is the fundamental and unalienable requirement.
What we are finding with this wildlife section is an exchange of a status quo situation, with regard to the taking of the resource, that's very nebulous and difficult to control for
[ Page 1848 ]
something that's clearly defined. We will have the benefit of the data coming forward from the first nations as they participate in harvesting.
[9:45]
M. de Jong: I won't belabour the point except to signal to the minister my own belief that, by virtue of how this is being attempted, there are looming difficulties simply because of the fact that neighbouring aboriginal groups are likely to impose their own claims over what has been agreed to in this wildlife management area.
If I can move on from that and ask the minister how he would respond to the criticism, or try to reconcile the difference that exists. Where we have a wildlife management area where the Nisga'a have specified
Hon. J. Cashore: It's not a double standard; it's simply a recognition that hunting is something that takes place more related to a traditional territory. So we've managed to achieve through negotiation a confinement with regard to what actual Nisga'a lands will be. Through negotiation agreement, there is some limited access to that resource off those lands. Again, that's a negotiated agreement in the interest of achieving certainty and of being able to manage the resource much more effectively than is the case under the status quo.
M. de Jong: I think the criticism is founded on the notion that if you have granted to the Nisga'a exclusive rights within a body of land that is their own, they are then receiving preferred treatment if, in addition to that, they retain all of the rights that citizens of this country enjoy on lands outside the Nisga'a territory. In that sense, at least, it's not a level playing field; there is preferential treatment being shown. If the minister agrees with that, it may be because he believes there is a way to justify that preferential treatment. But I have to tell him with all candour that I think the argument that there's a preferred right being granted here is an accurate assessment of the agreement. What I'm interested in hearing is his justification for the bestowment of that preferred right.
Hon. J. Cashore: Seeing the member for Richmond-Steveston in the chamber, I think he'll advise me if I'm on track.
I want to refer to the Russell and DuMoulin statement, on page 28. It states that the provision stating the Nisga'a have the primary exclusive right to harvest wildlife on Nisga'a lands, section 51, is not expressly subject to the provision which requires Nisga'a central government to provide "non-Nisga'a hunters reasonable opportunities to harvest wildlife on Nisga'a public lands." The fact is that the concern expressed by the member for Richmond-Steveston in the
M. de Jong: That certainly adds to the body of knowledge we have around those relevant sections. Could the minister yell across to me what page he was on? I must have got the Reader's Digest version of this much-referred-to document.
Hon. J. Cashore: When I'm conferring, sometimes it's a little difficult to hear the questions. I thought that was the point the hon. member was referring to.
Anyway, the page I referred to is a page that would have no meaning to the hon. member, because we have simply taken the list of the statements by the member for Richmond-Steveston and prepared answers under those statements on our own set of pages. That's what I was referring to.
M. de Jong: I was concerned that perhaps that very respected firm was offering me an abbreviated form of the document, perhaps out of concern for my ability to pay the member's former inflated rates with Russell and DuMoulin. I now have the benefit of his advice at much reduced cost.
On the issue of self-
Hon. J. Cashore: The province does have an interest in seeing that there are some determinations in here that protect the interests of the province. We make no apology for that. I don't think this is overly complex with regard to governance. It's analogous to the Municipal Act, which contains over 1,000 sections and is applicable to the smallest village as well as to the largest municipality in the province. The fact is that in the administration of government, whether it's a village, a municipality or an aboriginal community, it's the nature of the world we live in that there are complexities. I think it behooves us to have definitions in there that represent the interests of the province. As I was saying before, one of those interests is that there be jurisdictional certainty and clarity of definition, so that you don't have -- for instance, on an environmental assessment issue -- a conflict that you could have avoided by negotiating it well.
M. de Jong: I will leave on the record my concern about what I see as the potential for governmental excess in terms of the model that is contemplated here. But that is very much an issue which the standing committee can explore, and we'll hear about it, hopefully, from the Nisga'a themselves.
The only other point I want to relay to the minister is the expectation that I think the public has that in acceding -- to the extent that the provincial government does, by signing one of these agreements -- to this model, it be made clear to the Nisga'a that the responsibility, or the objective, at least,
[ Page 1849 ]
for sustaining that level of governmental activity will ultimately rest with them. We spoke about this briefly the other day. I hope the provincial government views this from the perspective that they or the federal government will not continue to provide financial resources to sustain a government model that may make sense now but from a practical point of view is overkill. I wonder if the minister can assure this committee that that has been made clear during the course of these negotiations.
Hon. J. Cashore: The Nisga'a can expect the same level of service as any other government. I know we canvassed this the other day, and I answered the question the other day. It had to do with: given the better circumstances that should result from a negotiated agreement, which should improve the capacity of the Nisga'a to pay for services. At the same time, it should have an impact over time on the costs and the needs for services, as we hopefully get away from cycles of poverty and into healthier communities and that sort of thing.
[10:00]
M. de Jong: I refer the minister to paragraph 22 on page 70, where, I believe, the provisions of the agreement are that differentiate the political rights between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a individuals -- specifically the limiting provisions on the right to vote.
I know that we dealt with this to some extent the other day. But as I was thinking about the minister's responses and his defence of the approach that has been opted for in this agreement-in-principle with respect to these questions of political rights, I feel compelled to ask one other question. In making the differentiation between Nisga'a and non-Nisga'a, and the ability of non-Nisga'a residents to participate in government on these lands, there is that old adage about no taxation without representation. Is that a principle that we are consciously saying will be suspended with respect to Nisga'a lands?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Nisga'a have no rights to tax non-Nisga'a on Nisga'a lands.
M. de Jong: Is the minister suggesting that it is on that basis that the limitation on political rights for non-Nisga'a persons can be justified, the fact that as he understands it at this point they will not be subject to any form of taxation by Nisga'a government?
Hon. J. Cashore: No, the answer was in response to the question that the member had asked before that about taxation and representation. That's why I made the reference to tax.
There are fewer than 20 non-Nisga'a on Nisga'a lands. However, it is an issue that comes up a lot in the discussions that we've had, and I think it comes
The fact is that that issue needs to be heard by the committee, and it's one on which we need to continue to receive that public input as we develop policy that will obtain at the subsequent negotiations in various circumstances.
M. de Jong: I honestly wish I could say that I share the minister's optimism. But I feel compelled to say that having established the principle in the way that is proposed in this agreement, it will be very difficult to tailor that principle to other circumstances, as the minister suggests he would like to do. From the perspective of the aboriginal groups that are going to be engaging in these negotiations, I have to say that in my estimation they will view this quite clearly as a signal that there will be different standards and different principles at play on lands that vest in them, in their communities and in their aboriginal government. So I have to say that I don't share the minister's optimism in that respect.
Having said that, I think my colleague from Richmond-Steveston has some questions on these and other points related to this agreement.
G. Plant: I recognize that it's getting late in the evening and that there's been a full and, in many cases, quite frank exchange of interesting views about the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle and some other issues, but there are some questions about the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle that I would like to canvass at this point. They are not in any particular order, and if one or two of them go over ground that's already been covered during the course of the estimates to date, I apologize for the imposition on the minister.
The first question has to do with the issue of the constitutional status of treaty rights. I understand what the minister was saying earlier this evening about the difference between describing the treaty as having been embedded in the constitution on the one hand and on the other hand, the fact that treaty rights enjoy constitutional protection under section 35 of the Constitution Act. The context of the question I'm going to ask is about the self-government provisions, and the minister and I have already had an informal conversation about this issue. I note that in the Vancouver Sun of June 18, 1996, the former Attorney General, Alec Macdonald, expressed his views on the Nisga'a agreement in an interesting op-ed piece that had the title: "Don't Embed Nisga'a Accord in Constitutional Concrete." I think that in part, the springboard for Mr. Macdonald's concerns was the self-government provisions in the agreement. I guess I would compare them, for the purposes of the question I want to ask, to the fisheries harvest agreement provisions in another part of the Nisga'a agreement-in-principle. I'm not asking a question tonight about the recitation or the identification of the subject matters of self-government. The question I'm asking is a simple one. Given the complexity of the subject, given the novelty of the experiment that's underway, given the potential that new and better ideas are going to come along day by day, week by week, year by year here, why did this government want to make -- I'm asking the minister for a statement of the government's policy here -- the self-government provisions in this agreement treaty rights?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's a component of a modern-day treaty. We consider it part of the wholeness of the treaty. Now, it's not a treaty at this stage; I have to say that. It's an agreement-in-principle, but it's leading to becoming a treaty, and it's a very important component.
[ Page 1850 ]
G. Plant: I'm sure the minister is alive to the distinction between creating these rights as treaty rights on the one hand and on the other hand doing something different with them, like the statutory rights that are contemplated in respect of the fisheries harvest agreement provisions of the agreement-in-principle.
Looking at the agreement as a bystander, I see that there is an issue. The fisheries issue is one where there has been some discussion obviously, a negotiation, about why and whether the fisheries rights should be given the status of treaty rights, and the parties have decided not to do that. I'm sure some would argue that fisheries rights are also important in this context. That stands to me as an example of how you can sit down in the context of agreement-in-principle negotiations and deal with a difficult and important subject matter, but recognize that it ought not to ultimately become a treaty right.
I don't understand yet from the minister's answer the rationale for taking a different approach with respect to self-government rights, given the example or the model set in this agreement by the fisheries harvest provisions. I just don't get the rationale for the minister's explanation of why these particular provisions need to become treaty rights.
Hon. J. Cashore: Self-government is a primary component of a modern treaty.
G. Plant: All right, I'll just hang on to that thought for a minute and see if I can move on to a different subject. Well, no, let me just make sure that I have that. I assume that the minister is saying that he's expressing the provincial government's policy about the importance of self-government in the context of modern-day treaties.
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
G. Plant: I wonder if I can take this a little bit further, then. I know the provincial government is developing various papers which it calls approaches to treaty-making. These approach documents are not specific to Nisga'a, but I think people reading them would read them with the Nisga'a agreement in front of them and would be thinking about them.
One of the statements of the government in a recent provincial discussion paper on self-government says this -- and it takes the legal position: "Aboriginal self-government has been superseded by sovereignty in the exhaustive distribution of legislative powers in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867." That purports to be a legal statement, and I think what the minister was saying a minute ago was probably a political statement. That is, the government has a political approach to self-government and its importance in the treaty context, which is not intended to displace this government's sense of the legal situation. Is that a fair summary?
Hon. J. Cashore: We see self-government as a component of a modern-day treaty and not interfering with or changing the allocation of powers between the federal and provincial governments.
G. Plant: I take it that the statement I'm about to read, which has been a statement of provincial approach on this issue, continues to be the provincial approach. Again, this statement is from a provincial policy or approach document: "The fundamental interest of the provincial government in the treaty-making process is that it maintains the ability to govern the province to the limits of its constitutional jurisdiction." Is that a correct statement of the fundamental interest of this provincial government?
[10:15]
Hon. J. Cashore: I don't have that document in front of me, but I think that it is a statement of the fundamental view of all provincial governments.
G. Plant: I want to move to a different area, and I wonder whether I'm going to get a self-evident proposition. I ended up on the self-government thing with what amounted to a self-evident proposition: it is a treaty, therefore it must deal with self-government; that is why it is a treaty -- or something like that.
An Hon. Member: I think, therefore I am.
G. Plant: Yes, exactly. It isn't as helpful an explanation of why self-government provisions have to be in this treaty as one might hope for.
Let me ask about another subject, which is the $190 million capital transfer payment. I may not have been around to hear the explanation at a particular public meeting. Does the province have a rationale for that particular number? What is the government's response when people ask why $190 million as opposed to some other number?
Hon. J. Cashore: It was bargained in the context of the rest of the agreement, and that takes in the entire spectrum of factors that go into negotiations.
G. Plant: Is one of those factors an attempt to look in a comparative way at the cash components of previous treaties and to do some kind of exposition? I forget the technical term to sort of gross up for inflation over time and average out for the numbers. Or is it unrelated to those old per capita figures in the number of treaties?
Hon. J. Cashore: No. It's related to all the other factors that are peculiar to the Nisga'a negotiations.
G. Plant: I want to deal with one particular textual question that has to do with a subject that may be of interest to one of the staff people assisting the minister. I was thinking of this when I heard the minister say many, many times that the whole purpose of this exercise is to exchange the uncertainty of aboriginal rights for the certainty of treaty rights. I was thinking that the minister has a tremendously exaggerated faith in the power of either lawyers or the written word to achieve any kind of clarity. My own experience is that the longer and the more complicated you make a document, the more problems you're making.
The particular problem I want to draw to the minister's attention is the definition of Nisga'a artifact. It's not really something that I spent a lot of time over the past few months looking at, but I did look at it again recently. The definition of Nisga'a artifact is that it means "any object having past and ongoing importance to Nisga'a cultural and spiritual practices." It seems to me that this is a classic instance of language creating more problems that it solves, since it's not clear who's going to define the importance. The opportunity there for subjective definition by one party at the expense of another is, I think, a recipe for some problems. I suppose the question
[ Page 1851 ]
arises: is this the kind of thing that the minister expects will be clarified during the course of negotiations toward a final agreement?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Chair, that will be tightened up in the final draft.
With regard to the member's comments about the AIP being so long and convoluted and needing a raft of lawyers and all that, hon. member, this AIP is the smallest AIP in the history of Canada. It's the first, but it's the smallest -- no, it's not the first. It's the first in the province. This AIP is this thick, and I know you're familiar with northern AIPs. They're about that high, and then the appendices are even higher. So this is really street-ready and in good, understandable language. Even I can understand most of it.
G. Plant: There is an invitation there to start a debate, which would in fact last several hours, about why this is so small. The obvious reason is that it's filled with clauses that don't have any content in them and that just amount to promises to undertake further negotiations.
But the actual issue that I was speaking to in my last comment was not the length of this agreement but the minister's faith in the power of the written word to achieve clarity, which is the primary basis of his articulation of the principle at stake here -- that is, the exchange of the uncertainty of aboriginal rights for the clarity of written treaty provisions. In that respect, I think the minister may be overly optimistic.
Let me move to another subject. I have an extract from an article in the Terrace Standard of June 26, 1996, which says that at least as of the end of June, the province has begun an in-house analysis of how the proposed Nisga'a treaty might affect people in businesses in the northwest. Apparently it was decided to have ministry staff carry out a socioeconomic impact study rather than hire an outside contractor. I'm not aware of this study, although the newspaper article quotes a ministry spokesman as saying that they -- that is, the ministry -- hope to finish the study by late July. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether this study is being done or whether it has in fact been done -- because we're now past late July. What is the status of this study?
Hon. J. Cashore: We expect it in October.
G. Plant: I suppose that means the study turned out to be a bigger job than originally anticipated. Does the minister expect to make the results of this study public?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.
G. Plant: I want to change the subject and move beyond the Nisga'a agreement for a moment to deal with a few other discrete and isolated topics.
First of all -- and I'm sorry if this is repetitive -- am I right that the current status of the Nisga'a negotiations is that there are no such negotiations underway at the moment?
Hon. J. Cashore: I did answer this at the very beginning of estimates. There are no main-table negotiations; there are side tables working on such things as the openness protocol, which is almost completed.
G. Plant: Another issue relating to the treaty negotiation process generally. From time to time, documents from the government and other people talk about the opportunity to take a regional approach to the resolution of particular issues that arise at treaty tables. Are there -- and again, if this question has been asked already, I'm sorry -- currently any treaty negotiations underway in which there is in fact a regional approach being taken?
[10:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: Under that definition of regional approach, no. But I'm very grateful that we have the Nuu-chah-nulth, which are, I think, 13 out of 14 on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which in a sense makes its own regional approach. We are still seeking to achieve that regional approach; we think there will be economies of scale in that.
G. Plant: This is a completely unrelated issue to the comprehensive treaty process. I learned at a ministerial briefing, through the good offices of the minister's staff, that the province does have a specific claims policy and that it has had such a policy since about 1994 -- at least that's the note I had.
I wonder if the minister could -- either here or if it would be more convenient elsewhere -- identify whether there are any specific claims currently being negotiated, and if so, identify them.
Hon. J. Cashore: There are some background discussions on that topic going on, but there are no specific claims underway at the present time.
G. Plant: There was some reference earlier this evening, particularly in the context of the current problems in Penticton around the Apex issue, to the fact that there are aboriginal first nations that are not participating in the B.C. Treaty Commission process. I wonder if the minister could inform us of what steps the government is taking right now, specifically, to bring others into the B.C. Treaty Commission process or if it's basically hoping that the success of the process in relation to those who are already participants will be enough of a sales technique.
Hon. J. Cashore: Once the BCTC opens its doors, it's no longer the role of the province to be an advocate for people to come into process, except in one way -- that is, through doing a good job so that those first nations that are wavering will say: "Yes, this is the way to go to achieve certainty."
G. Plant: Some time ago the minister was heard to express the view that he foresaw that the amount of Crown land that would eventually perhaps be on the table for transfer during the course of the treaty process, over the course of the fullness of that treaty process, would be something like what I understood to be 5 percent of the total land of the province.
I'm not sure that I've got the figure exactly right, but the 5 percent is a number that, the minister will recall, excited some interest in the press and among the public at the time. I wonder if the minister has a current view about that figure and if his view is that that is still the right figure. I would be interested in the minister's explanation of the rationale for that figure, and I might just gratuitously hope that the answer is not that 5 percent is sort of a necessary number for the modern treaty claims process.
Hon. J. Cashore: This is another question I've already answered. The up to 5 percent figure was stated when there
[ Page 1852 ]
was a great deal of public uncertainty and consternation over published reports that over 111 percent of the province was under claim. It's not based on any scientific study. It's based on the recognition of a very good, educated estimate that at the end of the day, when all of the treaties are settled, the total land base in settlement lands will be less than 5 percent.
It was very important for us to make that statement at the time in order to give perspective with regard to parameters on the treaty-making issue. Bear in mind also that that is inclusive of the current Indian reserve lands.
M. de Jong: As we perhaps draw close to the end of these discussions, I want to provide the minister an opportunity to respond to a passage that I came across in a document entitled "Treaty-Making: The First Nations Summit Perspective." In that document, the First Nations Summit comments that it does not find it acceptable that governments -- by that, it means the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada -- are attempting to predetermine the scope and substance of negotiations. That approach, it says, is a breach of the Crown's fiduciary duty and undermines the honour of the Crown.
It's a bit cryptic, but I would say to the minister that, firstly, I would be interested in his response to that criticism. Secondly -- not to be cute with the minister -- quite frankly, I hope that as a government he is trying to bring some scope and, through the development of the treaty mandate papers, develop that position which he is taking to the table on behalf of his clients in these negotiations -- that is, the non-aboriginal people of British Columbia.
Hon. J. Cashore: I agree, but I think the best way to deal with that is to demonstrate how well the process can work and will work, and how the end result will be a good end result, given the approach we are taking. In other words, I don't think we need to rise to the bait to respond to that statement. I respect the right of the First Nations Summit to make that statement; I simply don't agree with it. But I don't engage in what I consider to be a non-productive debate around that statement.
M. de Jong: Maybe we can end on the note that through this process, I think we've gained an appreciation of all that is left to do. I listened with interest as the minister and the member for Richmond-Steveston bantered back and forth about the respective length of agreements and complexity of agreements. It prompted me to recall the words of my own lady, Miss Isabelle, on the day we concluded our prenuptial agreement, when she said: "Remember, it's not the length of your agreement, but what you do with it."
Vote 9 approved.
Vote 10: ministry operations, $28,753,000 -- approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
The committee met at 6:50 p.m.
P. Reitsma: Continuing where we left off, on the SOA, it might be a bit repetitive to a certain extent -- it depends on how you look at it. Tourism, as we established, last year generated $6.7 billion in revenues compared with $6.4 billion in 1994 and an anticipated $7.1 in this coming year. Tourism industry revenues are increasing, but the SOA budgets are decreasing. Tourism needs to be able to compete globally to ensure that our tourism revenues keep increasing. The budgets allocated to the SOA did not allow it to effectively market British Columbia in our major markets or to potential emerging markets. Once again, will the minister review the funding formula so it's tied to performance?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, again, I think we've canvassed it fairly well. I think tourism is up significantly. There is an argument -- far be it from me to pretend that I'm an economist -- that in times when the private sector is spending well and the business sector is flourishing you should, in fact, reduce government expenditures. It was Keynes, or somebody like that, who came up with that theory. I think the budget allocated is substantial and adequate and that things will continue to grow.
P. Reitsma: Thank you. Again, one of the main purposes is to get this on the record in Hansard as well.
At the present time the SOA has a private sector advisory board that has input into the marketing strategy. Staff are still government employees and must answer to who pays them. The SOA needs to create a stronger mandate for the private sector board which allows that input to have more than advisory weight and to have the employees running the day-to-day operations of the SOA paid by and accountable to the SOA board. Would the minister consider giving the board more authority, more arm's length?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I think the structure is adequate.
P. Reitsma: My next question was answered, and that is that the minister will not give support to appropriate legislation, which I think is the only way to make it really a legislative entity, I suppose.
At present, Canada Customs officials are asking visitors entering Canada if they have ever been convicted of driving
[ Page 1853 ]
while under the influence of alcohol, or DUI. If the visitor has been convicted, no matter how old the charge, the visitor is assessed a fine of $95 (U.S.), or $125 (Canadian), for one time or they have the option of purchasing a one-year waiver for something like $385. This is a very unfair policy. If the visitor is deemed to be a threat to Canada because of his past behaviour, how does paying a fine make him any safer? The visitor has only two choices: either pay or turn back. This practice is very embarrassing for the visitor. It takes up a lot of time at the border crossing, and it creates a strong animosity towards the country. I have received a letter from Ms. Priddy on this, and she said she was going to look into it. In all seriousness, I would ask the minister if he will undertake to have the federal government look into this and right this wrong.
Hon. D. Miller: I read the same article and have since written to the federal minister about the incident that was reported. On the one hand, you must treat the issue of criminal records with some degree of seriousness, and certainly we should never denigrate impaired driving as being any less serious than any other conviction; but on the other hand, we don't want visitors treated in that kind of manner.
We've offered to provide some training. I gather that the U.S. customs has the same kinds of levers as we do. If, at least in terms of enforcing Canadian policy, we can assure that we're not being officious, hostile and whatever
P. Reitsma: In fact, we all appreciate that an impaired-driving conviction is something that we don't take lightly, but an offence has been committed and the penalty has been paid. If you get disbarred, and after a year and a half or two years you come back, it's over and done with. I would assume that the minister would agree with me that an impaired-driving conviction from 40 years ago, as happened to a U.S. citizen a while ago, surely is not a major threat to our citizens today.
I know it's under federal government jurisdiction, but I do seek your support in approaching the government to repeal this section of the Immigration Act, because it does have an impact on our tourism. I'm glad to hear that you have sent a letter, and I would ask if you would make a copy available if possible, please. This was a concern brought up particularly in the Kootenays -- where, by the way, tourism is down anyway, unfortunately, and it can hardly stand situations and further implications like this.
A general question: going back to the room tax, there is a 2 percent room tax, which I understand generates --what? -- some $65 million. I wonder what is happening with that money.
Hon. D. Miller: It was brought in, I believe, under the administration previous to the last one. Here's the way it works: municipalities make the decision as to whether or not they want to levy it. I think they have to ask our permission to proceed. They obviously use that revenue in a variety of ways to promote tourism development.
P. Reitsma: Maybe I should clarify myself. That's the additional 2 percent over the 8 percent of the provincial sales tax. Provincial sales tax used to be 6 percent, and the provincial tax on hotel rooms was pegged at 8 percent. They added an additional 2 percent many, many years ago. What happened with that additional 2 percent? I appreciate that the PST is now 7 percent, which really means they cut down the 2 percent to 1 percent. But what has happened with that 2 percent over the initial 6 percent sales tax over the years? Where has it gone, and where has that 1 percent gone?
Hon. D. Miller: The money goes into consolidated revenue. The 2 percent that may be levied by the municipalities, if they want to take advantage of that, is used in municipalities for a variety of tourism-related endeavours.
P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. My contention is that specifically when the sales tax was 6 percent, 2 percent was added to go towards the tourism industry. Obviously that 2 percent has gone into general revenue, which it was not intended for. Some of those revenues could be used to beef up the budget for the SOA, in particular for marketing. As I mentioned earlier, a dollar marketed yields a tenfold return.
The number of entries from Europe is up 11 to 12 percent, and from the Pacific Rim countries, it's up some 38 percent. What is being done to target those areas, particularly since we can no longer depend on the traditional market, which is really from within B.C.? People are not travelling as much at the moment as they used to. But what are we doing to target those specific markets -- Europe, the Pacific Rim and, to a certain extent, the U.S.A.?
[7:00]
Hon. D. Miller: On the Asia-Pacific side there are trade consumer shows, familiarization tours, trade publications, media relations, trade promotions: $1.3 million, roughly -- an estimate. Europe has trade consumer shows, familiarization, trade publications, consumer promotions, media relations, trade promotions: about $800,000 to $900,000. So there's marketing for those markets.
P. Reitsma: I have more of a comment now. Upon request of the government, the tourism industry has proven for the last three years, through tracked performance, that for every dollar invested by the government in marketing, the tourism industry produces a tenfold return in tax revenue. The vice-president of COTA at that time mentioned that no other ministry -- or investment opportunity, for that matter -- can produce the same results that tourism has repeatedly proven. This is a spending ministry, if anything. When you spend, you will see the return through the marketing. I think the government is missing a huge opportunity to produce much-needed funds to put toward reducing the debt and deficit as well as to support the opportunity for increasing employment, especially amongst the youth, in terms of further marketing.
I look at the Tourism budget in 1991-92, which was $20.3 million. The Tourism budget in '94-95 was $20.56 million, and the Tourism budget now is $25,513,000 and going down. The overall Tourism budget has increased quite a bit, but most of it is the result of additional expenditures -- salaries, benefits and operating costs -- not grants and contributions. In fact, the expenditures for grants and contributions are down by 2.9 percent. I wonder if the minister has any comment on that.
Hon. D. Miller: No. There's a partnership with the tourism sector. We do spend public money to assist in tourism development. It appears that those moneys are spent wisely. We're seeing a pretty phenomenal growth in tourism, so I think we're on the right path.
P. Reitsma: I'm glad the minister thinks so; we don't.
Probably the minister is familiar with the CBR policy review. Is the minister familiar with the CBR policy review?
The Chair: Could the member clarify his question?
P. Reitsma: The CBR review is the commercial back-country recreation policy review, initiated on February 6, 1995,
[ Page 1854 ]
by Minister Moe Sihota, announcing that a new interim policy being implemented regarding the application for commercial back-country recreational use of Crown lands was being lifted. Is the minister aware of that policy?
Hon. D. Miller: Not in that much detail, but I'm aware that we have worked to try to resolve some of the conflicts that existed with respect to the back-country tourism opportunities, and I gather that there was an announcement earlier today on an initiative in the Kootenays.
P. Reitsma: I have here a letter from the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. to Lynn Kennedy, director of the tenure management branch in Victoria, in part stating:
"Today in the tourism arena, the policy is met with a great deal of negative feeling. In fact, many feel betrayed. It has created many levels of bureaucracy and confusion, it has asked for more money without giving more confidence in being able to run a successful business, and it seems to have ignored the process that led up to the drafting of the policy."A number of concerns have been posed. There seems to be a great deal of silence from the CBR review group that was set up in April 1995. They recently responded to Lynn Kennedy's request for issues. It seems to indicate a certain amount of uncertainty in the direction that this review is going, and they seem to be way off the original time frame. There are many tenure applications on the desks of land officers, and after talking to different officers, they got the impression that they do not have a clear venue of where to go. The implementation of the CBR has met with very limited issuing of tenures, and each office deals with this in a different way with different priorities. I wonder if the minister could comment on that, please.
Hon. D. Miller: I believe there are some ongoing discussions relative to the tenure issue, Mr. Chairman.
P. Reitsma: I appreciate and note the short answer. There is a new phone number to help people who are using campgrounds all over B.C. The phone number is 1-800-689-9025. It's been implemented, and it's a good suggestion and a good vehicle. I have no problem with that. About four or five weeks ago, I phoned that number three or four times every day. You can't get through. Rather than making all kinds of political hay -- we've got enough for the next year or two anyway -- I would ask the minister if he would please look into that. It's a good system, but you can't get through.
Hon. D. Miller: On those rare occasions when I go camping, I never take my phone.
It is a program of B.C. Parks, but certainly if there are concerns, we'll try to deal with them at the officials' level.
P. Reitsma: I appreciate that it is B.C. Parks, but there are tourists coming here not only from inside but also from out of the country. When they want to phone for a space, they cannot get through. So I would appreciate that.
I had a letter that was sent to Wanda Hook, the director of industry services on Wharf Street, from Andy Larsen, president of the Parksville-Qualicum Beach Tourism Association. It was copied to the hon. minister on July 26.
"It is Tourism B.C.'s requirement that all accommodations list their high-season rates for the listings in your guide. Why then would you allow discounted coupons to be purchased separately? Also, why then have you allowed advertisers to list discount rates in their display ads? This inconsistency affects the credibility of your publication.I wonder if I could have a comment from the minister."While we acknowledge that you intend to not limit this coupon offer to only one property, as you did two years ago, even having ten properties participate is still unfair to the hundreds of other listed accommodations. Again, I repeat that the whole idea of discounting in general goes against the purpose of your publication, which we believe is to allow every accommodation in the province an equal opportunity to advertise their property."
Hon. D. Miller: Well, we try to resist the temptation to be Stalinist. Really, in the guide we're trying to get an indication for the public looking at the high and the low of the range. Anything those enterprises might do in the free market system, they're completely free to do. Why would the government or the state want to interfere with the right of a private business to discount fares or market itself any way they saw fit?
P. Reitsma: Well, it is Tourism B.C.'s requirement that all accommodations list their high-season rates in the listings. By having discounted rates in the high season, it gives the impression that people can bargain. Of course, that is unfair to the hundreds and hundreds of other properties that are listed. That's the point they're trying to make.
Hon. D. Miller: Is the member suggesting that consumers shouldn't have the right to bargain? I mean, did you ever buy a car? You know, anybody who walks in and pays the first price they put on the vehicle needs some experience or some help. I don't know about you, but I always try to find the best deal I can, and if I've got to bargain, I'll bargain.
P. Reitsma: Tourism B.C. requires that all accommodations list a high-season rate for the listing.
On one other point, I got a call from a couple of the recreational camping facilities. On page 1 in the B.C. Accommodations Guide, there is a requirement that the private campground owners do not include the GST in their rates. In fact, the GST is added on to the price. However, in provincial campgrounds it is included, which is somewhat discriminatory to the private sector. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.
Hon. D. Miller: I understand that a letter has been sent or is en route to the member and that there has also been some staff discussion with the member on this question. I don't have a copy of it, unfortunately; otherwise I'd read it.
P. Reitsma: I do have a copy of the letter, as a matter of fact, and I wonder if the minister has received one.
Hon. D. Miller: Did I sign it?
P. Reitsma: No, it was signed by Miss Doyle. I thought you might be interested in what's going on in your ministry when people raise concerns. It says: "The provincial park rates include the GST because many of the parks do not have an attendant present to collect the park fees." Could the minister indicate what the potential loss of revenue is because there are no park attendants there to collect the fees? Never mind about the GST -- if that's lost, that's one thing.
Hon. D. Miller: I think there is an explanation we can offer to the member. There are some reasons given for it with respect to having attendants available. I don't know that it's a particularly big issue. I'm just canvassing the staff to see whether the phone lines are being burned up, and they're not. So I don't know, I just don't see it as a particular problem.
[ Page 1855 ]
P. Reitsma: I'll read it out slowly: "The provincial park rates include the GST because many of the parks do not have an attendant present to collect the park fees." Now, the minister just a couple of minutes ago was heralding and trumpeting, "Don't get involved in private business," and what have you. I suggest and submit to the minister that it's a very poor way of doing business to run a provincial park and not have attendants there, if you're supposed to pay for spots. Never mind about the GST -- although it's unfair to the private sector, because they cannot include the GST -- but why have provincial parks and have fees, if there's nobody to collect them?
[7:15]
Hon. D. Miller: I think I've offered an explanation. Is the member advancing the prospect that we perhaps go to the ministry responsible for parks and hire additional people? You know, you always get this sort of one-way street, castigating the government for spending money, when we've spent however long we've been here with Liberal members requesting that we spend more money. Now we get another request: "Spend more money." Surely all issues need to be put in some relative context.
What's the problem? Because we don't have attendants at provincial campgrounds, the fee is inclusive of GST. Where they're running a private campground, they may have showers. Who knows what they've got? They may have candy bars or you name it. I know people camp there, but it's somewhat different. They have attendants, so what's the problem? It's not a big deal. Nobody's losing anything as a result of this. I don't know what the ratio is between public sector and private sector, but surely, in the scheme of things, considering the range of problems we could talk about, this one has got to be near the bottom.
P. Reitsma: I wish the minister wouldn't give those "catmatic" answers. He's chastising us for wanting to spend more money. What I would like the minister to do is collect those fees instead of spending money. There are fees, and they're not being paid because the attendants aren't there.
The Chair: Hon. members, I'm not sure we're dealing with the minister's estimates.
Hon. D. Miller: I think the member raises a good point.
The Chair: I'm not sure that we're dealing with the minister's estimates at this time. Is there an expenditure within these estimates that has to do with park fees?
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, let the record be absolutely clear: the member is proposing that we hire staff to be on permanent duty in every provincial campground and that we increase camping fees to pay for it -- and charge the GST on top of that. Now, that's a novel idea. Perhaps we could advertise that in our tourism brochures.
Look, it's really quite a simple matter. The explanation is very, very straightforward. Because there is no attendant, the fee is inclusive of GST. Where the private sector is out there, where they have the attendants, where they do all these other things, they have to collect the GST. Now, we're not going to increase camp fees
P. Reitsma: Since it's not his ministry, but he's happy to provide answers, the minister makes no sense in this comment. I've never suggested that we hire more people at the campgrounds; I'm simply suggesting that we have people
Interjection.
P. Reitsma: No, to collect the fees. Why have fees if they're not going to be collected in the first place? I never suggested that we increase the fees. It's just that the GST is included, which makes it not competitive with the private operators. That's all.
Interjection.
P. Reitsma: Well, no. Once you're on the losing side, you should not keep on going.
I have one or two more comments. We notice that some of the ferry traffic statistics in Nanaimo are down by 40,000 in terms of passengers and by about 30,000 in vehicles. That is having an impact on us on this particular part of the Island. Has the minister made an effort to contact the members of COTA? Has the minister made an effort to phone the presidents and/or CEOs of the regional destination marketing organization areas? There are about nine in B.C.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, we have. The answer is yes, we've talked to all regional organizations.
Here are some stats: provincial campground attendance, domestic air passenger traffic through Vancouver International Airport and B.C. ferry traffic between the mainland and Vancouver Island increased by 3.2 percent, 8.5 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively.
P. Reitsma: Has the minister personally made an effort and endeavoured to get into contact with the COTA board as well as the regional destination marketing organizations presidents? There are nine in B.C. Has he made a personal effort?
Hon. D. Miller: No, Mr. Chairman, I haven't.
P. Reitsma: The enthusiasm of the minister asking his staff if he has personally made an effort is disconcerting, to say the least.
Last but not least, my final comments: I appreciate the minister's time, particularly the very helpful staff. I know that other colleagues have some questions on the Ministry of Tourism.
My personal observation -- and, of course, I've been in the industry for 30 years and hope to be there for a long, long time -- is that I think that the minister simply has no time for this particular ministry. He is too busy, and I think he would have done a favour by saying no when the Premier offered him that particular ministry. There are too many things. I don't think the chemistry is there, nor is the enthusiasm there. I did not appreciate some of the glib answers on the serious questions I posed to him. It's too important. There are too many people involved, and some enthusiasm is much welcomed. That concludes mine.
Hon. D. Miller: If anybody thinks they've got a monopoly on good questions or indeed answers, they should give their head a shake.
[ Page 1856 ]
The member should pay some respect to the fact that just looking at the raw statistics relative to the tourism sector belies every single negative thing that member has said. In fact, I'm absolutely astounded that someone who has that kind of history in the tourism industry in this province would be so negative in an unqualified way about the potential for this significant industry, the work being done by the ministry and the former minister and indeed for the work that will be done by the current minister in this portfolio, who is going through a little bit of a personal struggle. It won't be too much longer until she regains the role of running this ministry.
I have been quite disconcerted, Mr. Chairman, that there has not been one original idea expressed by that member. The only thing I can say to sum up his ideas is that the government should spend more money and that we should increase campground fees, all at a time when the Liberal caucus is attacking this government without reservation for spending. The dichotomy
P. Reitsma: I never said anything about increases.
Hon. D. Miller: Now he's denying it. He wants us to raise campground fees, hire more public staff.
P. Reitsma: I never said that.
Hon. D. Miller: He said he didn't say that. You know, these estimates can be a productive period, as they have been with some, or they can be an unproductive period, as they have been with others. I try to be quite accommodating, regardless of which direction any particular critic wants to take it.
R. Neufeld: I have one brief question on B.C. 21 grants, and then I'll go on to some Tourism issues. Could the minister tell me the last time the committee sat and made any decisions on grants?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't. In fact, it hasn't sat, to my knowledge, since I have been the minister. I did endeavour earlier today to respond to some questions on that, and I indicated that we would be appointing a new committee.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that there were some questions earlier, but they weren't very clear to me. Some organizations in my constituency have some applications for which time and weather are relevant, specifically in the north, and I'm sure the minister is quite well aware, living in the north, of some of the things we're up against when winter comes -- which is not that far from now. There is some concern about when we can, at least, find out yea or nay on some of the projects. So I would like to encourage the minister, if he
Hon. D. Miller: It's two ministers and members of the government caucus. I think the member appreciates the whole business of the demand for those funds far exceeding the ability to supply money. Notwithstanding that, they've provided, I think, for some very worthwhile community projects to proceed. We don't want to delay that unnecessarily, but there is a need, with a new government, to form a new committee -- a new minister and all the rest of it. We realize that we have to get on with it.
R. Neufeld: I certainly agree that they provide a good amount of funding for all kinds of projects across the province, so I'm certainly not disputing the fact that it's a good program. It's just that I know that some of my people are starting to get on my back because of the weather, so I am in turn passing that on to the minister, and I'm sure that he will look into that.
I want to talk a little about tourism and how it affects the northeast, specifically the constituency I represent and the constituency of Peace River South. I wonder if the minister could provide me with a bit of background about what programs are in place in both those constituencies, Peace South and North, that are funded or partnered by the ministry in anything that will promote tourism in the north.
I continually read articles that usually miss out the northeastern part of British Columbia when it comes to tourism. Long before this minister's tenure and, I think, before his party became government, we even had a map put out by Tourism B.C. that kind of cut off just above Fort St. John and left a good part of the province right off the map. I'm not trying to be critical, but I'm trying to say that those kinds of things take a long time to get out of the system -- for people to forget about them. In many cases they'll overlook some of the good things the Ministry of Tourism does and focus on things that maybe happened in the past or something like that.
I know when you go on B.C. Ferries and you see all the brochures about everything to do in B.C., you can bet that 98 percent of it is centred in Vancouver or Victoria. We have a tremendous number of tourists using the ferry system -- a good system -- who should know a little more about what happens in the rest of the province. I'm not trying to skip all the way from Vancouver to Peace River North, because there's a lot of British Columbia in between, but I think that's fairly consistent.
I also know, from my travels in the
That worries me some, simply because we have some great potential in the north for some tourism. The minister is well aware of it in the constituency he comes from; there are the Charlottes and those kind of things. We talk now about the Serengeti of the north, and that's part of what's in my constituency. In fact, the Ministry of Environment and some other ministries have talked for a number of years about the Muskwa Kechika being the Serengeti of the north. Yet I see
[7:30]
[ Page 1857 ]
Hon. D. Miller: First of all, in terms of the partnership, we try through Partners in Tourism to provide funding for regional tourist groups. In that regard, if you include the
I do think that's important, because -- and going back to the northwest, where I have the most familiarity with this -- it's important for the regions to define how they want to be marketed. What are the features? Is it scenery or coming to the communities to see certain events? You know, it's those kinds of decisions. I think long ago the decision was made to try to have -- rather than Victoria, if you like, or the provincial government impose a marketing strategy -- something that would come from the region itself. We work in a supportive way with the regions to try to assist them in that kind of development. I don't know what the
In terms of a travelogue, I have been -- it's quite some time ago now -- up in the real extreme northeast part of the province, coming from Fort Simpson down into Fort Nelson. It is an area that is well worth visiting, and I think that as people increasingly look for more of the adventure tourism opportunities, they are prepared to go farther afield, to take those long drives and to see what in some respects is relatively unspoiled. So we do have Vacation B.C., Tourism North, Partners in Tourism and some other programs to assist.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the response, although it's a bit of a stretch from the Cariboo to the constituency of Peace River North, and I'm sure the minister realizes that. That is some of the difficulty. I notice some of the difficulty that comes with the minister trying to explain what kinds of things are promoted in the north, and to what extent by the Ministry of Tourism, because I believe that there could be a lot more done. I have a fairly good idea how the partnerships work and those kinds of things, and I'm not advocating that someone from Victoria should design something, either.
Just to maybe give you a bit of a flavour, I listened this last fall to CBC North talking about tourism. A gentleman with the Tourism ministry happened to be on the program. It was a CBC North program, but I never heard anything about the north. I think maybe that's where some training or some help, and maybe some of these people that do get on these
To respond to the minister about the mayor of Fort St. John talking about tourism up in the north, he is correct, but we have to remember that a lot of that is a captured market of American tourists who are going to see their last state, Alaska. Many of those people do it out of the U.S. just
So tourism is up, and it's continuing to go up. The roads are getting better. I don't want the minister to think that those are provincial roads; it's a federal highway that they are travelling on. But there are many things that could be promoted out of the north. Again, there is the Nahanni. It's the gateway to the Nahanni. There are services out of Fort Nelson and Fort St. John into the Nahanni for all kinds of adventure tourism. There is all kinds of adventure tourism in to the Rocky Mountain Trench out of Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson or any one of those areas along the highway. There are some great areas north of Fort Nelson, where people provide all kinds of airlifting by floatplane in the summertime, river boating and all kinds of things into that part of the country. Maybe we shouldn't be promoting it too much, because we'll get too many people there if too many people find out about it.
But I know there is difficulty for some of these people with going into the money market to expand, to put in the proper facilities so that they can service the market so they can go into those areas. Along with it they pay their taxes, their hotel room taxes and what not. And they expect -- or would like, I should say -- a little more back into the promotion of the north.
Along one of the lakes, Muncho Lake, about mile 450 on the Alaska Highway, right now is the largest log structure in British Columbia. It's a lodge that was built strictly for tourism. That gentleman has invested a fair amount of money and I think is probably doing quite well, but he is having some difficulty with the back-country recreation policy that the member for Parksville-Qualicum talked about earlier -- and also with the promotion of the north.
Maybe the minister could explain to me, in terms of the European and American markets, what Tourism B.C. does to promote that specific area, let's say -- the northeast -- in those markets for back country and those kinds of adventure, most of them taking place in spring, summer and fall.
Hon. D. Miller: I think marketing is certainly a specialized operation. I don't have the background in this, but I have listened and read certain things over the years. One of the things that is clear about British Columbia is that it is a desirable market for a variety of reasons.
When I talked earlier about particular regions wanting to develop a focus, what is it you want to market in the northeast? Is it the natural setting? Is it the parks? Is it those kinds of features? It seems to me that there has to be some understanding of those themes coming from the regions themselves.
We don't discriminate in marketing British Columbia. I referred earlier to a variety of trade and consumer shows, familiarization tours, trade publications, and media relations and trade promotions that we do. I talked about Asia-Pacific and the European market. But we need to
I suspect that the focus on an area like the northeast is particularly people who are looking at wilderness. I would say, generally, that the parks issue in British Columbia has given us a bit of a marketing edge. In other words, as word gets out that we have these spectacular places in British Columbia that we've protected, you'll see more and more. We'll have the building of that kind of tourism. I'll use as an example the midcoast, again an area that really didn't have much, and how we put that ship in place very quickly without really having, I would say, the appropriate kind of marketing lead-in time. Notwithstanding that, it's grown. Word of mouth has grown very quickly. We've got some spectacular reports in various media about that, and that kind of gets out.
[ Page 1858 ]
It really has to build. We try to market all of the benefits that British Columbia has to offer to tourists, no matter where they come from. Essentially, depending on seasons, that is a range of things marketed around our spectacular geography -- and probably, in terms of the more urbanized areas, the cities of Vancouver and Victoria, that kind of service -- our spectacular settings and those kinds of things. It's growing; there's no question it's growing.
While I can't detail each and every thing that we do specifically -- I don't have any copies of literature available to me -- we certainly don't discriminate with respect to the marketing of tourism generally in the province. The more successful you are and the more visitors who do come here, the more they will look at coming back, spreading the word about B.C. and starting to look further afield. You know, last year I went to Vancouver and took a trip up to Squamish. Well, now I'm thinking of going up on the ferry to Prince Rupert and maybe along Highway 16 and up to the northeast part of the province. So there's no discrimination with respect to any of the regions.
Certainly the staff and the ministry understand the regions. Again, if they're not located there, it doesn't mean they don't have some understanding of the tourism potential in those regions. Certainly members like yourself can be very vocal in terms
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the response. Maybe I could ask the minister to -- and I know he doesn't have it all at his fingertips here, but the staff could -- provide me with some of the things that I've been asking about. It may be the simpler way to go about it.
Just so you know, last summer the chamber of commerce in Fort St. John attempted to get from the Ministry of Tourism some mailing addresses in the huge Asian market, to try and mail some brochures out of the northeast about that wonderful part of British Columbia. I'm not going to mention any names, but someone said: "Well, why would anyone want to come to Fort St. John, anyhow?" I guess,
Hon. D. Miller: Who said that?
R. Neufeld: Yes, who said it? Those are the things that people in the north, specifically the chamber of commerce, PRATA or any of those, have to try to overcome when we're trying to
I appreciate what the minister said, that the themes have to come from the north -- the ideas on how to market some of these things. So when we try to do that and to ask for that information and that help, we're not trying to do it in a negative way. We're trying to do it in a positive way, so that we can have the themes coming from the north and people from the north trying to break into that market. I think everyone knows that it's a hard market to break into. In fact, the chamber was informed that it is a hard market to break into. I don't think that they were under any illusion that it was an easy market to break into.
But when do you start? That's the issue. We can either not do it now and wait for five years and start
[7:45]
Now I want to go on a little bit more about the themes and the ideas coming from the north. And that happens, specifically out of the
Up until just a short time ago British Columbia was going to put in its share of $100,000, and that is cost-shared between the region and the province. Just recently, the province has said: "Well, I'm not sure; I think we are going to cut our contribution by half." Mr. Minister, this is a program that has been going on for a number of years that has been successful, and I know it is asking for money. But when something is successful that is more or less hatched out of the north, and promotes tourism not just for the north but for all of British Columbia, because those people have to arrive in and depart from British Columbia somehow, we should be able to look at that seriously.
I take the minister's comments seriously about trying to get themes coming from the north and those kind of things, and I think you've got the theme. The people want to carry on with that program. I just wonder if the minister could maybe explain that it was a hitch in the system, that someone really didn't mean that, that we are going to fund it, and that yes, it is a good program and does come out of the north and promotes all of British Columbia, and that we are going to participate in it. It makes it difficult for the other partners now. What do they do? Do they share two-thirds of it, and B.C. just shares a small portion -- a quarter of it or something? How are we going to go about it? Those are real difficulties.
Hon. D. Miller: My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that we are prepared to match what the Peace River tourism region is prepared to put in. We will match funding from the region up to $50,000, so if there are any details that you want to pursue with my staff, I'd be happy to do that. I think that is a serious offer on our part to participate. It does appear that there is some growing potential. You've talked about the private sector building the largest log structure. Obviously capital had some faith that they would get a return on that.
On the other hand, I think your region has had something that others would, in some sense, be quite envious of, and that is on the private sector side. A lot of the resource jobs there have been quite good. I think the employment rates have been fairly good. Fort Nelson, for example, has
R. Neufeld: The northeast has done quite well with private sector investments, and the jobs are up. They are in reasonably good shape, but that should not diminish the fact that tourism is just as important, because if we go to Vancou-
[ Page 1859 ]
ver and have a quick look around there, for all intents, it's doing fairly well economically, too. I listened to quite a bit of the debate here, and that's what I have heard consistently from the minister. I hope that doesn't play a part. I guess I can take home to the people in Fort St. John the fact that the $100,000 that is cost-shared -- not $100,000 from the province, but the part that's cost-shared -- is 100 percent on, and we're away. I'll be letting them know first thing in the morning, and I'm sure they'll be very happy.
I have just one last note, and then I'm finished. I'll let the minister carry on with the rest of his debate. I watch the Knowledge Network and actually watch it quite often, because there are some pretty interesting programs. Tom Perry has done a number of films or productions, whatever you want to call them, about the Muskwa Kechika and about the Stikine, two of them that I know of, in conjunction with some guide-outfitters and some people who are interested in the wilderness. Although it's slanted a bit, and I don't always agree with it -- because I can tell by some of the pictures in the clearcuts that they're from southern B.C., and they put them into a video for the north -- regardless, it does show the beauty of the northeast in the wilderness that we do have, that we have always had and that we want to keep.
That's a wonderful marketing tool that we could use, especially across the European market, in wilderness travel. I know that the log structure I talked about is actually partnered by Europeans and a fellow who emigrated here quite a few years ago. Those people usually come to fish or hunt or just plain look at the wilderness. I think that those kinds of productions are quite worthwhile. I don't know what the cost of them was; I have no idea. The minister would know better, as Mr. Perry was a closer colleague of the minister than of mine, so that he could probably find out a lot easier than I could how much they cost.
Those are tools we should look at seriously for marketing in the European market, even if you put together a thousand of them to sell or give away or whatever at the shows that take place in different places in Europe. I think they're great tools that we could use to promote our wilderness. It probably won't be too many years before we're going to have start wondering how we're going to contain it. That could be the problem now, too, that we don't want to get too carried away. That's just an idea I had on how we could start promoting some of the north and specifically the services that are given out of the northeast into that wilderness area.
Hon. D. Miller: You should tell your constituency you beat me up badly, and you've got that money confirmed, and that I think you've come with some good ideas that staff here can follow up on. In other words, where there are existing promotion materials -- whether they're the videos you referred to or other things, and how difficult or easy it would be simply to make them available in some of the trade shows, etc. -- we'll certainly try to follow up on that.
B. Barisoff: I have just a couple of comments to the minister. One of them is about the levy that the federal government is imposing on people crossing the border. It has been a concern in the Kootenay area, and in the Grand Forks area in particular, where people are coming over golfing. I'm wondering whether a joint letter from the minister and our critic to send to the federal government might be in order, because I think it's affecting all of British Columbia.
My main question to the hon. minister is about a tourist information booth at the border crossing coming into Osoyoos, which actually services Highway 97. That highway actually services the entire province and particularly the north and the Okanagan. It goes all the way up into the riding of the hon. member for Peace River North. I'm wondering what the status of that is, or if there is a status on it at all.
Hon. D. Miller: There is a centre, I gather. We do provide some level of support through training -- the SuperHost program -- and through use of the Tourism summer employment program to provide some staffing, but we're not prepared to assume the responsibility of running the operation. The reason for that is that there are a number of others around the province, up to 100 or 150. Were we to do that there, we would then, I think, have the same requests coming from all those other tourist information booths.
You may want to advance an argument that it's a central gateway point, I think I can anticipate. Believe me, there are others who will advance equally compelling arguments, and where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? I realize that member may say: "Well, do it in my constituency. I'm not that concerned about the others." Unfortunately, we have to look at the whole province. That's really our decision.
B. Barisoff: You anticipated right: that would be my argument -- and a compelling argument I must admit, though, in that a major border crossing coming into British Columbia does serve this area. For the hon. member for Peace River North, I think a lot of people who are coming through that area, and in particular a lot of Americans, don't have the ability of finding out a lot of things about British Columbia. That's my argument, the fact that it actually doesn't serve just the Chamber of Commerce of Osoyoos, it actually serves B.C. as a whole. I think that it's more important that we look at the entire province, and I'm not looking at that in Oliver or other parts of the riding. I think it's a different situation.
I think the land that has been set aside for the weigh scales that are going in there would be a compelling argument that we've got the area and we've got some land that we could make a joint resource with the new weigh scales that are supposed to go in there in the future. I think the argument is more compelling than anywhere else in British Columbia.
Hon. D. Miller: You know, I live in Prince Rupert, which is described at various times as the gateway to Alaska. We certainly have a lot of people coming into British Columbia through Prince Rupert, but the tourist bureau, which is funded by the city and has some revenue stream through gift bars and those kinds of things, essentially provides that information. The member must appreciate the argument I am making.
B. Barisoff: I do appreciate where you are coming from, and I know that's a difficult situation.
Last but not least, I'd just like to go back to the first question that I asked: whether the minister would be prepared to get together with the Tourism critic for the Liberal Party to write a letter jointly. I know it does
Those kinds of things are probably happening more often than not, and maybe jointly we can put some pressure on to stop this.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the offer. I have already sent a letter to the federal minister, and I really think that anything
[ Page 1860 ]
that could be sent by the Liberal caucus would be equally helpful. I think we're going to get a copy of my letter over to you.
J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions to the minister. I realize that Small Business and Tourism isn't his main activity, but this has some overlap in Employment and Investment, so he may find it a little bit interesting.
With the sport fishing sector, the recreational lodges and that sort of thing, I just want to confirm if it is considered that the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism is the lead ministry for that sector of the economy.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I think that's fair to say in one sense. It's become a fairly complex issue, obviously, with the jurisdictions -- when you look at just provincial -- of the Lands branch and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and on the federal side, the DFO. It obviously is an area that requires some degree of integration -- I'm not certain that it's been there -- across a number of ministries in at least two governments.
J. van Dongen: Could the minister briefly summarize the programs and services which are provided for that sector by the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture? How big a factor is it in the ministry? Are there any specific programs that relate to that sector, or are there parts of other, broader programs that impact on the sports and recreation sector?
[8:00]
Hon. D. Miller: We have promoted it, most recently through an advertising campaign. The member may have seen some of the print examples. We have worked with the industry on this in an attempt to overcome the perception that coming to B.C. this year wasn't worthwhile because there were no fish; in fact, that's not true. There were and are difficulties in certain areas and in relation to certain stocks -- with chinook, for example, it's all catch and release -- but the sport fishing opportunities in British Columbia are still fairly significant. That's the reason we ran the campaign: to try to counter that. We work with industry. We recognize that this is a sector of the fishing industry, if you like, that has merit.
I do think, though, that there has to be a more rational approach to this industry. Certainly the allocation issues have proven to be quite problematic. It's a bit of a classic in the sense that it's a resource that's being chased by a variety of interests. Typically, they tend to conflict as opposed to trying to look at where there might be mutual interests and working it out. We have faced the same issue on the land base over the last five years. I've tried to develop a new, more involved approach to resolving those land use questions. My own view is that we need to do the same with respect to this issue. I think it's a good industry, but I also think that the existing commercial sector is an extremely important industry. It's a billion-dollar industry in this province, and it employs thousands of men and women in areas where there are really no opportunities to diversify the economy. We really have to steer away from the extremes. We should not promote this to the exclusion of the commercial sector, for example, but should try to work in a more cooperative way with the sectors and the federal government to see if we can't get a more intelligent approach to some of these questions.
In the meantime, for historical reasons, there will continue to be some level of conflict. The case in point is the northern area of the coast, where years ago the commercial trollers stopped fishing chinook in order to allow stocks to rebuild. There's a great history of commercial fishermen -- or fishers; I occasionally lapse into my old parlance of "fishermen" -- making personal economic sacrifices in order to allow stocks to rebuild. Years ago, for example, the UFAWU was the first to call for a moratorium on the herring fishery when the stocks were low. In the case of the Queen Charlotte Islands, the trollers stopped fishing chinook. But when we saw the stocks come back, the federal government allocated a significant portion to this new commercial sport business. The trollers who lived on the islands for many years and brought all their revenue back into the communities were not that happy -- indeed, neither were the communities themselves. In the case of the sport sector, they saw an industry that flew in its guests, its groceries and its supplies. What they couldn't see were any tangible benefits. You know, anybody from rural B.C. would understand this argument. Unless the people in a particular region can see that there's a benefit and an opportunity for them, they tend not to be supportive. I think that's really what happened in that location.
There have been other problems. There was a lodge built on the midcoast that required access across Crown land, and lo and behold, we received a letter from the federal government saying that the fish couldn't stand any more pressure. In that case, we refused the allocation. So there is a bit of confusion out there, I'm the first to admit.
On the other hand, it's been a growing sector, and one that has the opportunity to attract visitors to British Columbia. Because I fly up to Prince Rupert all the time, I routinely run into people either heading up to fish in lodges on the mainland side or heading over to the Charlottes. We want to encourage that as a good business, but it's got to be in the context of managing this resource in a very prudent manner. Conservation comes first, and then being able to sort out the allocation issues between the various gear types. So I think we're kind of starting into that. Hopefully, you'll get good people from all the sectors who will want to play a meaningful and good role and try to work these things out.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. I guess his knowledge and interest in the fishing industry generally shows. Certainly I agree that the whole issue of allocation, conservation and habitat is probably as big an issue for the sports sector in terms of the long-term viability of that industry as the promotional aspects and the advertising dollars, etc. I'm relatively new to all this stuff, but when I look at it, I'm wondering if there isn't some merit in moving the primary responsibility for the sports sector in with the commercial sector and aquaculture, and with everybody else that's being looked after by the Ag, Fish and Food ministry. I'm just wondering if the minister had any thoughts on that.
Hon. D. Miller: I did say -- and I think this is true -- that I don't think there will ever be a complete transfer, notwithstanding the Premier's very successful initiative for British Columbia to have more of a say in the management of the coastal fishery. In other words, there will always be a level of federal involvement, and there are aboriginal issues that need to be considered, and provincial ones across a number of ministries. So I do think that the solution lies not so much in giving the allocation of the issues to a single ministry that has some paramountcy, if you like, but rather in getting the stakeholders to buy into a process that is seen to be fair and that produces good results. I think that's probably a truism with respect to resource development these days. I don't think that there's a sector where you can proceed without dealing
[ Page 1861 ]
with what some people might view as peripheral issues -- but they're not. Whether they're aboriginal questions or other users of the same resource, there's only one way to do it.
I remember I had a debate years ago at the theatre over at the museum with a professor from the University of Victoria. He was not an avowed social democrat, but he advanced the premise, which I thought actually made a lot of
R. Neufeld: You're kidding.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, they come in all stripes, and I say that's good.
His argument was that when it came to managing our natural resources, particularly renewable resources, they had to be managed in what he termed a social democratic manner -- in fact, I had no idea what his politics were. I think that's true, but, you know, people put their own interpretation on that. There's a lot that's not known, but we tend to look for the extremes. In other words, it's a fight between good and evil, but it never is. Really, it's a fight between interests, and it's a challenge trying to get them to understand that sometimes they've got to move aside a bit of self-interest and consider a broader interest. But once you get them there, people generally are pretty productive in terms of coming up with appropriate resource development plans. In this case, we're talking about allocation between various gear types.
J. van Dongen: Again, the question I posed to the minister and the issue I raised was the idea of simply transferring primary responsibility for the sports sector between agencies provincially. I realize that I'm posing that in the context of the bigger discussion that's taking place, but I do have some correspondence here that refers to an interministry committee which involved Environment, Ag and Fish, and Tourism, in an attempt to deal with some of these allocation issues and the debates on individual Crown lease applications, that sort of thing. I'm wondering is that committee going yet -- a little bit about what it's doing, how it's doing, that sort of thing?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that's correct. The ministry is represented on that committee. It really is early days in terms of getting down to work. There's been a lot of work putting forward or developing position papers vis-�-vis the federal-provincial debate, but the ministry will be represented. I just go back and cite Forestry, where for the first time Tourism is consulted in a much better way than it ever had been in the past relative to resource development plans. What we are trying to do is incorporate the fact that there are a lot of users of a particular resource. How do we put plans together that recognize that? So, yes, we are on the committees. It's early days; we are just getting started.
J. van Dongen: Is the main thrust of this committee now to deal with negotiations with the federal government? Secondly, is there going to be any attempt to look at some of the applications? For example, the minister made reference to the application, the individual
Hon. D. Miller: No, really, it's not to be a vetting committee to determine individual issues. There are responsibilities that rest, probably in that case, with the lands branch, You can see how, again, in that particular case, governments are faced with tough decisions, where a letter comes from the director of DFO, saying that it's not possible to have any more pressure on the fishery in that area. It does go to a more complex issue, because I think there are a number of facets to the sport fishing issue
To some degree, every sector needs a set of regulations that govern an industry. I know that people don't like regulations and red tape, and that's not really what I'm talking about. But what are the rules? If you look at that sector, you can say that on land, there is a bit of ability to control, because you can control access to Crown lands. If somebody wants to build a land-based lodge, there may be some measure of control either through Crown land or through zoning in regional districts.
On the other hand, one of the features of the lodges is that while there is a notional allocation from DFO, can you really control the harvest? Commercial fishers, for example, are limited to a set established harvest. They tally what people catch, and at a certain point they say: "Whoa, that's it, no more; you can't go fishing." That results in a huge problem up in my constituency, where fishermen see additional sockeye running up the Skeena but they can't go fish, because they've got a fisheries management plan. On the other hand, how do you control those activities where it's individual fishers, where there's
There are also other issues about floating lodges that don't really have to have access to a land base, except perhaps to pick up passengers. How do you control those? I think there are other issues
There are a whole variety of complexities within that that I say should be dealt with, and I think there needs to be a regulatory framework so people know where they stand. What, for example, between us and the DFO, is a reasonable amount of fishing pressure up on the midcoast? I don't know the answer to that question, but that's a reasonable question to ask. There's a moratorium in the Queen Charlotte Islands. You can't build any more lodges now, because -- although there's a conflict over that with the Haida right now -- it's deemed that it would just create additional pressure that the stocks can't stand.
All of this industry has kind of grown like this without the benefit of somebody saying, "Well, just a minute. What would a regulatory framework be? What are the issues we should be watching for?" -- those kinds of questions. These things happen. I'm not being a critic here. I'm just trying to give a bit of a lesson in terms of how things have developed and as to what the challenge now is: to try to bring those interests, along with other commercial interests, into a forum where, hopefully, you can get some consensus about allocation issues and the like.
[8:15]
J. van Dongen: I agree with the minister that there needs to be a known regulatory framework dealing with these industries and the allocation issues. I've looked at this case fairly extensively, and I'm pleased to hear that the minister has some knowledge of it. I think the problem I have with this particular case -- and I'm not going to go into all the details
[ Page 1862 ]
-- is that the facts and the stage at which they were at in the process suggest to me that these people haven't been treated very fairly.
I think if there's an intent by DFO, the Ministry of Environment or whoever to start looking at some new regulatory frameworks or to take a different approach to allocation issues, then it would be more reasonable and sensible for everybody involved to let people know that at the beginning or at least partway into their application process.
In this case, these people were not even looking for a new lease. They were looking for a variance or a change from a previous lease for a dock that had already been granted seven years ago. So they go through all this new process, and they go through a whole bunch of third-party opinions that were all supportive -- other than possibly one. They get to the final stage and, on the basis of a letter from DFO which had been written, I think, once already to the Minister of Environment and rejected at that time, they're turned down. Their individual application is turned down.
When I look at all this stuff, it's not clear to me today whether there's a moratorium in that area for leases, or not. I'm curious if the minister or the staff here have any better understanding of the situation than I do. I think this was an isolated, individual case that was red-circled for this particular treatment. I don't see the rest of that overall approach, or at least an initiative towards an approach, to come up with a better regulatory framework. I just don't see that anywhere today, and yet these people have been rejected. I have a real, serious problem with the way this case has been handled. I wonder if the minister could comment.
Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to take too much time. I've been talking fairly freely about issues that we have a responsibility for, or at least about the kind of promotion that we have done along the tourism line. But we're not a line agency or line ministry with respect to land use decisions. I just think that since that responsibility rests with other ministers, and I believe it may have been canvassed with other
I have some knowledge of the subject, personally. I'm not sure if it's in my constituency or not, but it's in that general area. But since I believe it has been canvassed, and rather than to presume to speak for other
J. van Dongen: Certainly it's not my intent to go over the ground that we did with the Minister of Environment. I think the point is that there's a significant amount of money being spent by the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture to promote recreation, sport fishing and lodges, etc. We have this lack of clarity about what the situation is, and we have this particular case being rejected. Anyway, I do know that approaches have been made to the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and I'm hoping that in that capacity, the minister will take some interest in helping us revisit the rationale for the DFO letter, because that recommendation is not well founded or supported by the facts. This is incumbent upon us as British Columbians. It would reflect a spirit of fairness to the people who went through this long process, who had a significant portion of their season and their facility booked and who were spending all this money on advertising. From the point of view of his interest in jobs and tourism, I think it behooves the minister to work with, say, the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks and make at least a fair effort at reviewing the rationale for the DFO letter in this particular case. Having said that, I certainly support the minister's comment that we need to take a more proactive look at a better overall framework for these kinds of decisions.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I can't really comment on Mr. Tousignant's letter. I mean, he is the director general or whatever -- he has a pretty exalted title -- and he writes a letter saying that this is the case with respect to fishery stocks. I think that on my first day here, which was a couple of days ago, a couple of your colleagues were trying to beat me up. They accused me, as the minister responsible for Hydro, of putting Hydro's electricity generation ahead of fish. I proved them wrong. They didn't apologize or anything; maybe they'll come back some time before the estimates are over and say they're sorry. They were pretty vocal, though. They were pretty vociferous. They were adamant. "You people over there," they were saying, "should look at what you're doing: you're killing all these fish." Well, you can get that kind of argument going pretty easily -- do you know what I mean? -- but it's harder to have a rational argument. I don't want to belabour the point. When a letter comes sailing past you from the head DFO guy in charge of fish, and it says, "Don't do it," if you don't pay attention, the next thing that will happen is that somebody over there might actually go after you again. And I can only take so much.
I. Chong: I'm going to go back for a moment to the Small Business estimates, and then I have some questions on Tourism and Culture. I want to just let you know that there are some questions, but my method, as you know, is that I ask and you answer. Then we'll get a very good dialogue going. I think we'll keep that up. After I conclude, the member who has attended here has some questions on B.C. Transit. We should be able to conclude this evening.
I just want to make some remarks to counter, I suppose, what the minister stated earlier. In my opening remarks, I had stated and agreed that this was indeed a ministry of spending; there is no question about that. It needs to be said, though, that the members who requested more dollars to be spent were not asking that they be spent frivolously or recklessly, but that they be spent wisely. The reason we have been questioning things is to ensure that there is efficient, economical and effective use of taxpayers' dollars. As I understand it, the process of the estimates is there to allow us to ask questions, to understand the programs, to offer suggestions or improvements and to have a better understanding of the objectives of this government. I just want to clarify that so the minister wouldn't believe that we're here for negative reasons. I hope that everything being offered is constructive criticism.
Having said that, I would like to quickly move on to a couple of items on Small Business that I did not conclude, one of which is a complaint, actually, that was passed on to me. I recognize, as the member for Abbotsford had brought up an issue, that it is the same idea, but it relates to small business. This particular person was concerned because he was requesting -- as I understand it, and I've only just received this to review -- an opportunity to acquire, I guess, a Crown lease so that he can operate a gravel pit, and has to apply through B.C. Lands.
Recognizing that the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks estimates have been done some weeks ago, and having only just received this, I'm not trying to raise that issue a second time, except to bring this issue to the minister's attention. It deals with a small business that attempted to get a lease two years ago. It's now two years later, and he's been told that it will be another six months before he gets a decision on this. It has to do, I understand, with a Sayward gravel pit -- up in that area -- and this particular person put an application in and was told: "First come, first served." Subsequently, someone else put an application in, and suddenly he found
[ Page 1863 ]
that it would be tendered out as a competition, and that's why the two-year delay. He sent a number of letters -- a number of submissions here -- indicating that he's at the end of his rope. He applied May 20, 1994, and the most recent letter implies that he may not get any kind of an answer until the spring of 1997. So that's a good three years of investment into this.
This is where Small Business comes in. It may be the wrong ministry, because it does deal with a Crown lease, but it has to do with small business, and I'm hopeful that any committees that are set up with other ministries are going to be looking at the overlap that does occur for small businesses. At this point they feel this is their area of last resort; to ask the minister to consider looking at this to see if there isn't some injustice that has been played out on this particular individual.
Hon. D. Miller: It's hard to comment on the circumstances. I know from one of the other hats I wear -- Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources -- that I've got letters from regional districts in the province asking me to shut down gravel operations because they don't like the by-product -- which is a bit of noise and dust, I guess. That's out in the Abbotsford area. What's happened, I think, in some areas is that they used to be fairly rural, and there would be a gravel operation -- a quarry and a crusher and the like -- and then, as urbanization kind of crept out around it, you get, typically, the people in the residential area saying: "We don't like this; we don't want this activity anymore." You can't just say: "Well, too bad. It's been there." In some cases, if there is a legal right, you've got to say, "Look, the people have a legal right," and you try to work it out. I think that currently my ministry, with the regional district, is trying to look at issues around zoning and see whether or not the regions can accept some responsibility with respect to certain land use issues.
All I can say is that I hesitate to take on problems that are not my responsibility. My deputy has kindly suggested to me that we would be happy to take a look at it, so we will. If you want to send a communication to my office, we'll see if there's something that we can do. We don't mind being, if you like, a champion for those business interests that come to us, and say, "Look, we need your help here with another arm of government" --not at all. In fact, I do that, and I've always done that routinely, but sometimes the answer reveals another side of the story. That's all I'm saying.
I. Chong: I do appreciate the offer from the ministry. It just landed on my desk as well, and the individual is not even in my constituency. But I agree with you; oftentimes we get things, and if they feel this is their area of last resort, then certainly as elected officials we have to undertake to help wherever we can. So I will pass that on to your ministry, and as I say, from my understanding, it was a misunderstanding. "First come, first served" was written in some sort of a application or brochure. Somehow that's been misinterpreted, and certainly he feels an injustice has been done.
I'll move quickly on to some tourism questions. A lot has been raised, and I've crossed out the questions that have been asked by my colleagues. But I do have a number of my own. First of all, regarding the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association -- a member of the COTA group -- I believe that they submitted a media release on July 18, 1995, to the ministry, and I don't know whether it's been looked at.
One of their ideas was that they wanted this ministry to support an expanded Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, and they requested that the B.C. government swiftly take steps towards the development of a facility that benefits all of B.C. I would like to get some direction on what has happened there -- whether there is a development process for an expanded trade and convention centre for downtown Vancouver, or whether this is an issue you aren't able to undertake at this time.
[8:30]
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there is, in fact, an initiative. We invited proposals from the private sector; there are three. We are looking at that question and looking at those proposals. We have not made any final decisions with respect to going back out. There are a number of issues around that. Obviously, everybody wants the government to belly up to the bar when it comes to money, and it's not that easy these days. But we think it is something that is absolutely necessary. There needs to be an expansion of those facilities in Vancouver.
We want a fair process so that all of the three proponents who may bid on
There's no question that the need is there. Vancouver is attracting international conventions and does quite well, but we're shy of the kind of rooms that are needed to make a big breakthrough in terms of some of our competing markets. We will be working with the private sector, the City of Vancouver has been involved to see if we can do what's necessary to ensure that at some point there is a new centre.
I. Chong: The other area in tourism I'd like to touch on is Discover B.C., which I understand has some links with B.C. Tel. As I understand it, it seems to work fine right now for the larger accommodation operators. But the smaller operators aren't able to buy into this particular program because they cannot guarantee rooms or prices. I wonder what changes are being looked at in this ministry to assist the smaller operators in participating in this program.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that, in fact, there really is no barrier to enterprises -- even small ones -- utilizing Discovery B.C. There are about 500 -- maybe this is a term I have to get to understand -- fixed-roof accommodations for those people who want a roof over their heads, plus campsites. It's commission-based -- 10 percent commission on the rate, I guess -- so if they think it's an advantage to them in terms of people using their
I. Chong: I think what the smaller operators are saying is that because of the criteria set up, they have to ensure that they have a number of rooms available should someone call in for them. That's why they're saying they cannot guarantee rooms or prices, and accordingly, they have to opt out of this particular program. I understand that's why some of the small operators are looking for assistance, to see if someone would look into it. I'm not sure if it excludes them completely or not.
Hon. D. Miller: We're happy to look and see if there are any problems.
I. Chong: See, it's going along quite smoothly.
The next area I'd like to speak about
[ Page 1864 ]
the 100th anniversary of the discovery of gold in the Yukon, I wonder if the minister can advise what the ministry is doing to ensure that B.C. gets a significant share of the tourist dollars headed for the Yukon. I believe they will be travelling through, and I'd like to know what cooperative efforts may be looked at, if any, because there could be a number of good years ahead of us.
Hon. D. Miller: I understand that we are working in concert with Tourism Yukon. I guess the advantage for British Columbia is that people who will be coming through B.C. may stay a couple of extra days -- as they say, grab them, make them stay a couple more days -- particularly around the access points: my hometown of Prince Rupert, B.C. Ferries, the Alaska
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The northeast -- there you go. I had not forgotten; I was waiting, Mr. Chairman. I knew that if I didn't look at him, he'd turn around and start yelling at me about the northeast and the Alaska Highway. So there we are; we've got some good opportunities.
I. Chong: Well, that's good news to hear, because I certainly would not want to miss that opportunity.
If I'm hopping around a bit, it's because, as I say, I tried to pull out questions others have asked in order to get through the process quicker this evening.
The other area I would like to touch on, which briefly touches on this ministry, has to do with the Victoria Line. I realize that's a Crown corporation on its own. All I'm looking for is whether there is a commitment by this ministry to keep the Victoria Line in operation until there definitely is a buyer or something in place. I am certain the minister knows I represent this area. The tourist operators in this area are very concerned about the Victoria Line. We may have differences as to how it should have been run from the very start, but regardless, it's important that if you decide to divest yourself of this particular organization, you ensure that there is a commitment to carry on and that there is no danger to the tourist season or any threat that others may perceive happening down the road. I wonder if this minister could commit that there will certainly be a consistent and smooth transition.
Hon. D. Miller: I've enjoyed my conversations about Victoria Line, particularly in question period in the House one day.
We have an advisory committee. I think I've reported in the press previously that we want people here who have been involved to be part of the advisory process with us. In that respect, I think of Mark Scott, from Tourism Victoria, and Lorne White. Certainly Mayor Cross has been quite supportive. In fact, I was very pleased that Mayor Cross, who recognized the significant benefits that the Victoria Line has brought to the greater Victoria region, really thanked our government for bringing that initiative on stream. We did canvass it fairly thoroughly in one of my estimates; I can't remember which one now.
My view is quite simple. If the private sector can come in and offer something reasonable and lasting to run that, then why not have the private sector do it, as opposed to B.C. Ferries? It's not as though it's a service to another Canadian port or a B.C. port; it's service to a U.S. city. We'll endeavour to do that, but I think we'll have these people on board with respect to the advice they'll give us. They've been involved for many years, and I'm sure that we'll continue to do what's appropriate to ensure good tourism numbers here in Victoria.
I. Chong: Then I take that as a commitment that you'll ensure that that is a smooth transition.
One other item I brought up during interim supply -- and in fairness, I haven't had an opportunity to follow through on this, but I did mention to the minister at that time that I would like to bring it up at this time -- was the Showcase B.C. matter. That was a private sector tourism promotion, an exhibit that was being built and was going to start touring North America in January of 1997. At the time, the minister stated that Showcase B.C. had come to the ministry requesting funds. I said that I had spoken to the individual involved, who had told me there were no requests for funds. They had wanted to receive some sort of endorsement from the ministry in terms of the use of Super, Natural. At the time, I was wondering whether the ministry was looking at any way to take advantage of this opportunity to market tourism without the dollar cost and allow the Super, Natural trademark, for a price, to be utilized by a private sector organization.
Hon. D. Miller: We did canvass it, and the tourism designations
I. Chong: I wasn't looking for any kind of selective policy but just what your policy is, which you've clarified, and I can appreciate that. I may want to look into it further, and if I do so, there are some interesting aspects of it that I will probably raise with your deputy minister.
I have another item on Tourism. I understand that there are Stop of Interest signs posted along the highways. That was a major sign program that was undertaken about a year ago. I'm wondering if this is continuing and what is in the budget for 1996-97. I wasn't sure what was in 1995-96 either, and I wonder if I could get an idea of what was in last year's budget, buried in one of those figures, and what is available for '96-97.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there was a program: heritage Stop of Interest signage. We're not anticipating any expenditures in this fiscal year. It has achieved its intended purpose.
I. Chong: That was easy.
The next item I have is about regulation regarding the whale-watching industry. I ask that because a question was posed to me this past weekend. I know that whale watching has become quite a tourist attraction for many people who come here, and at this point I don't know if the ministry has anything in place to recognize the importance of that industry
[ Page 1865 ]
and the threat that is now in place, with no regulation. From my understanding, those operators who are taking people out are travelling extremely close to those whales and causing them stress, to the point that we could lose that industry if they're not told of the distance they must stay from the whales when they do their whale watching. I'm wondering if there is any program in place in the ministry that could educate this growing industry. It will die on its own if we don't stop and put some intervention in at this point.
Hon. D. Miller: We don't have a regulatory capacity, and we don't really have any sort of knowledge about it. I think there is a body of opinion with respect to that; I'm not familiar with it. I would suspect that the issues of public safety would be the responsibility of the Coast Guard and the issues involving aquatic life would be the responsibility of DFO, but I can't say it with any authority. I do know that it's not in our jurisdiction.
[8:45]
I. Chong: If I need to, I will take it up, because I am concerned that there isn'
I do have some more questions on tourism. On another money item, I understand there are nine regions for which allocations to the tourist districts are made. Is there a formula? Is that formula based on population or per capita, or is it based on just the land itself?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there is. We have a chart. There is a basic allocation of $130,000 each, and then there's a matching program where we will essentially match some of their expenditures. So it does provide a variety of expenditures by region, ranging from a low of about
Is the member from North Peace still here?
An Hon. Member: He's looking at you.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, just a minute. For the northwest, there's not much more -- a little bit more.
...and a high of $500,000 in the Okanagan-Similkameen. I'll have to take a look at this list and see if we've got our priorities straight here.
I. Chong: I guess what I was looking for was that were allocations, that they have been consistent in the past and that they have not changed for the current year.
Interjection.
I. Chong: I see the staff nodding their heads: I'll acknowledge that as a yes.
Also in the Ministry of Tourism, last year the minister stated that B.C. was on the way to making tourism a $9.9 billion industry by the year 1999. I know that your predecessor loved numbers. Can you tell me whether or not these are numbers you would also endorse? In any event, your predecessor had said that everything seemed to be on target -- this was last year -- and that he expected to certainly reach the $9.9 billion by 1999 or surpass it. I'm wondering if the minister is monitoring that growth and whether he can confirm that they are in fact going to reach that goal in 1999.
Hon. D. Miller: Who am I to throw cold water on the zeal and enthusiasm of the former minister in setting a target? Is it so important that we now say: "Oh, we can't make it"? It's not a positive approach to the question. Mr. Barlee was enthusiastic. He was supported by all the tourist groups. Even political foes told me that he was the best Tourism minister B.C. has ever had. I've had old Socreds tell me that.
R. Neufeld: Who?
Hon. D. Miller: I won't name them here, but it's absolutely true. In fact, it's someone who's related to the former member from Prince Rupert, who used to serve as the Speaker here in the assembly. That will clue you in.
I think Mr. Barlee was just great. He was Super, Natural in his enthusiasm. We can see by the numbers that tourism is growing. Government initiatives like Victoria Line have contributed to the growth here on the lower Island. Right around the province we're doing what we can to save the taxpayers money and increase the private sector business opportunities in the tourism sector. So who am I to say that by the year 2000 we won't achieve that target?
I. Chong: I ask that question not to put the minister on the spot but just to see whether or not there was a growth rate and a goal or target that your predecessor left you which you were perhaps charting, given that he was so enthusiastic about reaching his goal.
The other thing I want to ask the minister about is a cost-effective marketing tool that was introduced in 1994 -- the rolling billboards, as I understand it. I've not seen these,
Interjection.
I. Chong: You have no idea what you've inherited.
Anyway, it sounds as if it was wonderful and very successful. I'm just wondering if this is still being done. If so, is it included in the tourism marketing funding, the $23 million that is allocated?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm happy to report that it's still rolling along. In fact, we're spending more money on it. It appears to be quite a cost-effective program. I think it caught people's attention. We're continuing with some lesser expenditure this fiscal year.
I. Chong: Can you tell me, then, whether this is included in the tourism marketing budget, the $23 million which is eventually going to be the SOA? I'll let the minister know why I ask that. If this is a marketing plan that the ministry had initiated, versus one that the SOA would now either prefer not to maintain or to keep, would they have the option to include it in their budget?
Hon. D. Miller: It's not within the SOA. It appears that it was funded under the heritage infrastructure projects.
I. Chong: There's one last thing in the tourism sector regarding the Pacific National Exhibition, the PNE. I wonder if
[ Page 1866 ]
the minister is able to tell us whether there has been any decision regarding the relocation of the site and whether the agricultural industry has been consulted in the possible relocation of the site.
Hon. D. Miller: I was just laughing with my staff, because I really like those fairs, particularly agricultural fairs; I think they're great. We've got some agricultural fairs around this province that are very, very old -- out in Saanich. Up in Bella Coola they've got an agricultural fall fair that's maybe not 100 years old, but pushing 100 years old. They really are unique, and I love going to them. When I was a kid, I loved going over to the PNE and looking at the cows and things like that.
The problem is generally that the city of Vancouver said they don't want it. Right? They said: "Get it out of here." So we said we would like to keep it alive -- both the agricultural part of it and the other part of it, the annual event. Looking around, we said: "We're not going to go out there and spend a ton of money. Is there some private sector interest?" Indeed, we've scouted that territory. We looked at some other locations, and we found that Surrey didn't want it. You start to think: "Gee, where's the partnership here?"
We haven't shut the door on anything. In fact, we'd still like to see if we can find an appropriate location outside Hastings Park, get the private sector involved, minimize any cost and risk to the taxpayer, and have that run, if you like, as a commercial enterprise. We will be running it this year, and I think we have the ability to extend the lease and run it next year, as well. In the meantime, we'll continue to consult and work to see what we can produce in the way of a realistic plan.
I. Chong: I did forget one other item regarding the tourism industry, and that has to do with the wine industry. I'm not a connoisseur of wines, and I'm not an expert. However, I have been speaking to those in the wine industry. This has to do with tourism and the small business side of it. The wine industry's estate wineries, etc., are finding that they are not able to have the sale of wine and cheese and things like that on their premises, where people can purchase a bottle of wine to sample it and at the same time have a small lunch. They feel that's a real hindrance to them.
Whether it's a licensing matter, I'm not sure, but they feel that small business jobs could be created if they were allowed to open ancillary functions. It wouldn't be a café; it would be a little wine-tasting area. They were wondering whether this ministry would have any knowledge of that and what they are able to do.
Hon. D. Miller: There may be some issues around this that the AG is looking at -- the issues of food, licensing and those kinds of questions -- but the growth of the B.C. wine industry surely stands as one of the success stories of a particular industry or sector. I think most MLAs had the opportunity to attend a reception at the Empress last week -- the week before or whenever it was. I noted some names, and I've since tried a couple of those wines and found them to be as good as you can buy anywhere.
I didn't get a chance on Saturday to read the Globe and Mail, which is usually one of my favourite pastimes, particularly the culture and arts section -- I didn't get a laugh out of that one, either. But I did note an article by Anita Stewart in the Globe and Mail on Saturday, which has wonderful language about this. The headline is: "Sun, Arid Climate Bless B.C. Wineries." It says: "Vintners with vision, talent have turned fruit-growing region into a world-class centre for nectar of the gods." So the word is getting out there. While they may not be able to sell cheese along with the wine, I think they are doing fairly well selling wine, and I guess there are some other B.C. producers who are doing fairly well with the cheese.
I. Chong: I'm going to move quickly to the film industry and the B.C. Film Commission. I understand that the film industry spent $432 million in 1995, which went directly into the B.C. economy. I'm wondering what amounts have been spent for 1996 and whether your staff have those figures available yet.
Hon. D. Miller: We're generally anticipating about a $500 million business this year. Direct expenditures in 1995 were $432 million. Just let me read this. It's kind of interesting. B.C. is the fourth-largest production centre in North America -- fabulous. Six thousand highly skilled people are directly employed. In fact, one of my children is working in that industry, and when I was talking to him a week or so ago, he said that the work is increasing. Typically, they struggle, and they get a job; then they're laid off for a while. He said the work has really expanded, which is obviously news to a parent's ears. In '95, $432 million in direct expenditures was contributed to the provincial economy from 95 theatrical productions. From non-theatrical productions, such as commercials and corporate videos, there was another $80 million, and that has doubled since 1990.
We also did a deal with the trade unions -- and I think I've talked about this before -- as a one-stop shopping centre in terms of getting an agreement with the unions in the field. I was involved in that when I was in Labour, and that has led to an expansion of the business. We are looking at the expansion of bridge studios. It's a good industry, and we are taking the right steps to see how it can be expanded.
[9:00]
I. Chong: I agree wholeheartedly that it is a good industry. The B.C. Film Commission, as I understand it, still employs a staff of ten, as it did when it was created in 1978. I'm wondering whether there are any plans underway to expand it, and when I say that, I'm saying it in view of perhaps expanding the B.C. Film Commission to Victoria. I know that it's stationed in Vancouver and has been there for some time, as you know. The B.C. Film Commission does try to accommodate the entire province. However, here in Victoria and on the Island, it has become increasingly more popular for the film industry to come here. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- your colleague in Labour, Education; I can't remember his portfolio -- has in fact had the film industry appear in his particular riding. I know that they are looking to do quite a substantial amount of filming in Victoria.
Some months ago, Victoria was not able to secure its own film commissioner, and I understand that the film commissioner in Vancouver is now offering services part-time. I ask whether or not this minister would consider looking at Victoria as another sub-office, because there would certainly be enough work to promote tourism and put more dollars into this particular area.
Hon. D. Miller: Just to be clear, the commission is not a commission for Vancouver; it's a commission for British Columbia. There is no question that Vancouver, for a variety of reasons probably, has the bulk of the work, but other parts
[ Page 1867 ]
of the province have experienced major productions in their regions, including here in Victoria: Excess Baggage and Smart Alec and the television series, "Poltergeist." As the Minister Responsible for Culture, I don't know that I shall pass any comments on those, but nonetheless, they are jobs. We are working, and the film commission staff are in Victoria two days a week. I think we are looking at the potential on the labour side here, as we did in Vancouver. We will continue to work, and if the municipalities feel strongly about it and are prepared to put up some
I. Chong: They're not.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, then, it's pretty tough to proceed if the municipalities aren't prepared to make some investment in the process.
I. Chong: I'm going to reduce my questions on culture, because I know the hour is late. We still have B.C. Transit to look at, and I want to allow your staff to continue on.
I have one question regarding the culture industry, and that is in regard to the B.C. Arts Council. Just very briefly, does this ministry still support its structure, and is there any intention to change what is fundamentally set up there now?
Hon. D. Miller: It's in legislation. We are certainly not planning to withdraw or amend it. It was appointed in April of this year, chaired by Mavor Moore, vice-chaired by Caroline Woodward, with a $15.7 million grant budget, 120 scholarships, 195 operating grants, etc. So it appears to be doing what it was intended to do.
I. Chong: I have a number of overall concluding questions regarding the ministry. Does your ministry monitor your budget on a monthly, quarterly or annual basis?
Hon. D. Miller: It is monthly, Mr. Chairman.
I. Chong: At the close of the financial period, do you receive your actual results? If so, how many days after the month closes do you in fact receive your results?
Hon. D. Miller: We don't collect a lot of revenue, but there's got to be a process attached to all of it.
I. Chong: What I was just looking for is this: if you do it on a monthly
Hon. D. Miller: It would be seven to ten days.
I. Chong: How often does your department update its current year's revenue-and-expenditure estimates? As you see things changing, you know, do you have your budget variance to
Hon. D. Miller: Really, we do collect a lot of money; the government agents collect a lot of money for other ministries. I mean, you always look at your budget to account for current circumstances and make adjustments if required. I don't know how much more explicit I can be.
I. Chong: That more or less, very quickly in a nutshell, wraps up the ministry items for Small Business, Tourism and Culture, except for B.C. Transit. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the staff who have been so very patient and who have given me all the technical answers that I wanted, and to thank the minister for having been patient as well throughout this process.
At this time, then, I believe the hon. member who has some questions about B.C. Transit will continue.
Hon. D. Miller: I'd just like to advise the member that if there are
I gather we are going to B.C. Transit. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could have a little break to kind of trade staff, so that I won't be caught by any probing, penetrating questions being tossed at me by the opposition.
The committee recessed from 9:09 p.m. to 9:14 p.m.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
D. Symons: The first question I have is: which portion of vote 44 goes for commuter rail? Could I have a breakdown of the operating contribution of that that goes to the West Coast Express -- the debt-servicing charge and the total that goes to West Coast Express out of the roughly $287 million?
Hon. D. Miller: The total operating costs of West Coast -- this is the total provincial share -- are: $20 million on the operating side and $11 million on debt service, for a total of $31 million. Sorry, that's total expenditure on the system itself. Of the $20 million on the operating side, $15.25 million is the provincial share; and for the debt service, we've got a total of $26 million on the provincial side.
[9:15]
D. Symons: First I wrote down $20 million, $11 million and then the $31 million total, but you're saying that's the total budget for the West Coast Express. Can you just give me those other figures for the government contribution toward those budgets once more, please? Just the government's portion of vote 44 -- that's all I was after, actually.
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I do believe that was canvassed under the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Labour, which has responsibility for the West Coast Express.
D. Symons: The problem is that those figures weren't given to me there, because it was under vote 44. I got the total, $31 million, but that's the total operating cost. I want the breakdown from vote 44. Could you just repeat it for me?
Hon. D. Miller: What was that, Mr. Chairman? What did he want?
The Chair: Member, perhaps you could ask your question once more.
D. Symons: What is the government's share of vote 44 that goes to the operating costs and the debt servicing?
Hon. D. Miller: I thought I gave that. It is $15.25 million in operating and $11.02 million on the debt, for a combined total of $26.27 million.
[ Page 1868 ]
D. Symons: There's about an 8 percent change in the operating contribution this year. Would most of that be accounted for because of commuter rail?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes.
D. Symons: You may want to give me some further information in written form later on. If that's more convenient, you can say so, and I'll just wait expectantly for it. But for the past fiscal year, can we look at the total operating costs, and at some other costs as well, for each of three different areas that I'll mention in a moment? What I'm after are the total operating costs, the operating costs per service-hour, the cost recovery rate and the number of new buses that are replacement and additional buses, over the last four-year period. Now, this is not information that I think you'll have at your fingertips, but I'd like that for the Vancouver regional transit commission's area -- the greater Vancouver area -- the Victoria system and the other municipal systems program. I'll leave that, because I'm quite sure the minister won't have that.
What you might answer now, with the help you have there: have there been any significant changes budgeted for this fiscal year in any of those categories?
Hon. D. Miller: I gather, in the new buses. And the member is correct: we don't have that detail, but we will get it to him.
D. Symons: Can the minister give me the number -- and again, you may not have this -- of buses that are under lease and the total number of vehicles that are buses, and the same with SkyTrain? I gather there are two SeaBuses, and both of those are under lease. If you happen to have those figures handy, fine; otherwise, again, I can wait for that.
Could I just add that that's the Vancouver regional transit system I was interested in.
Hon. D. Miller: I gather that the member pursued this issue last year. Transit has financed approximately 350 buses, out of a total fleet of 1,300, through capital leases. These were made between '81 and '87, because there were financial cost savings available from lease-financing as compared to debt-financing. Of course, the advantage to Transit is the lower interest rate, in exchange for the lessor being able to claim capital cost allowance deductions. The tax act was changed in '87 to eliminate that advantage, and since that time Transit has funded vehicle purchases with borrowings.
D. Symons: Does Transit pay the corporate capital tax?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
D. Symons: How much of the funding for the Vancouver regional transit commission came from local tax sources -- that is, the fuel tax, the Hydro non-residential tax, operating revenue and provincial funding? If you would break it down just for Vancouver, that will give us, I suppose, the total operating budget for this particular fiscal year.
Hon. D. Miller: I can give you the totals. On the Vancouver system, on the operating side, it's $160 million from revenue; gas tax, $76.83 million; Hydro levy, $14.91 million; non-residential property tax, $31.39 million; and interest, $1.83 million. That's a total of $284.96 million.
D. Symons: Was there a funding shortfall or a surplus, or did you break even for the '95-96 fiscal year?
Hon. D. Miller: Gee, we just gave you the projected '96-97. The total for the '95-96 is $275.64 million. What was the question? Were there shortfalls?
Interjection.
The Chair: Member, could the minister finish?
Hon. D. Miller: No, there wasn't.
D. Symons: Could you give us either the surplus or the shortfall?
Hon. D. Miller: The surplus is $24.82 million, which is an increase from the previous year, when it was $14.48 million.
D. Symons: I wonder if we could exclude SkyTrain. I suspect the West Coast Express is already excluded. What is the cost per hour and the cost per ride for the Vancouver regional system, excluding those from the system as a whole? Is there a difference between the cost per hour and the cost per ride when using diesel buses as compared to using trolley buses?
Hon. D. Miller: First, dealing with SkyTrain, for operating costs per service-hour, it's $62.73. With conventional buses, it's $79.86. That's in Vancouver.
D. Symons: I was wondering if you might have the cost per ride as well. Obviously, you didn't give
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. On the buses, the total is $1.66, which includes operating and debt servicing. That's for boarded passengers. SkyTrain is $4.72.
D. Symons: Do these figures include the debt-servicing charges?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes.
D. Symons: Can you just briefly describe how ridership is determined? The issue of ridership versus revenues comes up quite often, and I'm wondering if you could give us an idea of how it's determined. I gather that in Calgary they collect data at the maximum-load points four times per year and that once a year they do a detailed count at each of the stations. Does B.C. Transit do the same sorts of procedures?
Hon. D. Miller: We do counts, and we also work backward from the revenue side to determine ridership.
D. Symons: When was the last time B.C. Transit did an actual count at stations? Would you have the numbers available for that particular date?
Hon. D. Miller: Nobody seems quite sure when the last one was. We do the counts twice a year.
D. Symons: I assume that you're responding regarding body counts, not ticket-sale counts, at those points.
Fare evasion is a concern that has been raised in the press a few times. In fact, a few years ago the Vancouver Province
[ Page 1869 ]
did a phone-in survey on that. They asked, "Would you ride SkyTrain without paying?" and 40 percent of the respondents indicated that they would. The numbers that Transit gives for people who cheat, shall we say, the transit system is considerably smaller. At that time, there was a debate about whether turnstiles should be installed and what sort of fare-checkers might be used. Have there been any further discussions within Transit on that, and has any decision been made as to how you might deal with fare evasion?
Hon. D. Miller: There's a fine for people who cheat. We have hired some additional inspectors, and we estimate that the evasion certainly doesn't exceed 3 percent.
D. Symons: I know that a previous CEO of B.C. Transit hired people to test the system, and they found it was fairly easy. These people were intentionally going out to cheat the system. I wonder if 3 percent is realistic. I've ridden SkyTrain quite frequently, and I have yet to be challenged by anybody. When I walk on, I simply walk right in. I don't go near the machines and fumble as if I'm purchasing a ticket at all, and I've had no trouble at all. I do happen to have a pass in my pocket, but nobody has ever asked me to prove it. So I wonder if maybe your figures might be a little off.
There's been some suggestion of a fare card, and I gather that some firm has offered to supply B.C. Transit with a fare card that sounds like it is capable of doing something out of the future. There's a possibility of using that on SkyTrain or using it in B.C. Transit generally. Has there been any consideration of that? What's Transit's mode on that?
Hon. D. Miller: We're certainly looking at a variety of options.
D. Symons: I wonder about what that answer says, but we'll leave it at that for the moment. I suppose I may get the same answer regarding the new fare boxes. I believe they were to be used as a pilot project in North Vancouver, starting in January of this year. Is that pilot now underway? It should be winding up about this time and coming back with a decision as to whether to install it on all buses.
[9:30]
Hon. D. Miller: It has not commenced yet.
D. Symons: It was budgeted, I believe, last year, to start this January. Is it just delayed because of equipment coming, or is this caught in the capital freeze?
Hon. D. Miller: There are a number of factors. I gather the toonie had some impact, and now it's caught in the freeze.
D. Symons: Let's move to B.C. Transit as a whole. What portion of the operating costs for B.C. Transit is for hourly paid workers -- drivers, maintenance, people of that sort -- compared to the salaried people, the supervisor, administrative personnel? Can you give me sort of a breakdown proportionately -- 40, 60, or whatever?
Hon. D. Miller: It's about 3 to 1, or a little bit better than that -- in other words, hourly wage employees versus salaried.
D. Symons: So you're saying that about 75 percent, then, are hourly, and it's 25 percent for the other -- 3 to 1 works out to roughly that.
For the Oakridge Transit Centre, what's the average monthly payroll for regular time? That will be hourly paid workers at that particular one. Could you break it down? Because I'm asking about regular time, and then I'd like to know the overtime earnings for the average month at Oakridge, as well.
Hon. D. Miller: We don't have that.
D. Symons: If you could supply that at some future
There was a wildcat strike, I believe, at Port Coquitlam back in November, where the drivers took an hour off to complain about routing changes and so forth once commuter rail was set up. I wonder whether the drivers were paid for their time off, and I wonder why it was necessary for the drivers to walk off the job to get management to listen to their concerns.
Hon. D. Miller: No, they weren't paid. And no, it's not necessary to do that.
D. Symons: Regarding Mr. Corrigan, who I believe still works part time for B.C. Transit: what is his per diem, and what was the total paid in per diems for the last fiscal year?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm looking, and I certainly will continue to look. I don't know if the member has some other questions we could run with.
D. Symons: Again, I can take that answer at a future time. It might be easier than searching for it now.
Just on that same thing, I was wondering if you might be able to give me the cost of the car allowance or the lease -- whatever it is -- on the car he has, and maybe what kind of vehicle he might be supplied by Transit.
If we could just move on to another touchy topic, the firing of Mr. Frank Dixon, the previous CEO of B.C. Transit, I believe the court award was in the neighbourhood of $300,000, which included aggravated damages and punitive damages; along with that were court costs and so forth. So I'm wondering now if you have the total cost to B.C. Transit of that whole suit by Mr. Dixon, including the court awards and court costs. Have you got a grand total on that? Again, we might have to wait for that one.
Hon. D. Miller: It looks like the total is $568,779. Now, $304,000 was damages, and in November the court determined how the costs should be determined. Although they have claimed $120,000 in costs, B.C. Transit was only responsible for $66,000 and another $18,000 in disbursements. So that appears to be the total.
D. Symons: This is a horrendous total; it's more than I was expecting. I was expecting somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400,000, and it's $160,000 higher than that for what appears to be a needless exercise that the taxpayers or the farepayers are going to have to cough up for, I guess.
In 1994 there was a report to the Vancouver regional transit commission on projected cost saving with minibuses. It talked about a potential saving of approximately 6 percent
[ Page 1870 ]
from this type of service, compared with the cost of conventional bus service. On the basis of that report, which has now been in the hands of Transit for two years, I wonder what steps have been taken to introduce more minibuses into service so that you might realize that 6 percent saving.
Hon. D. Miller: There are four in service. We have delivery now of six, which will be put into service, and another nine are coming this fall.
D. Symons: The same report also recommended the need for more flexible wages. I'll simply read from the recommendations, part 8 of that report, section 2: "Wages and Work Rules. A single-tier wage scale for all bus operators in both regional systems is recommended. At the same time, however, it is critical that B.C. Transit and the ICTU negotiate more flexible work rules suitable to a variety of vehicle sizes and operating conditions." I wonder what may have come of that recommendation. I gather that when the drivers are experienced in articulated buses and so forth, they say: "This is a larger bus, and therefore we should be paid more for operating that particular vehicle." But when it comes to going down to the minibus, they say: "A bus is a bus, and therefore we should get the same wage." Has there been any movement on the part of B.C. Transit and the ICTU to get more flexible arrangements regarding both working hours and scheduling, and also the vehicles they're driving?
Hon. D. Miller: It may be six of one and half a dozen of the other. You've got trained drivers, and there's a driver's rate. In some cases, they'll be driving a smaller bus and in other cases, a larger bus. So it's pretty much of a saw-off, I guess. You get into the hassle of just fooling around and then the hassle of hours in a week; the next thing you know, you're adding people to your payroll and then you've got a bunch of people who are unhappy. So it appears that the single rate is probably the best way to go.
D. Symons: I gather from that answer there's been no movement on that particular topic.
I asked about the new replacement vehicles and the additional vehicles a while ago. Of the Vancouver fleet of transit vehicles, I'm wondering if you might be able to give me a breakdown of the number that are diesel, trolley, natural gas or CNGs, or other alternative fuels.
Hon. D. Miller: For diesel buses, it's 591; trolley buses, 244; articulated buses, 27; CNGs or gas buses, 25; low-floor buses, 91; and minibuses, the aforementioned 19.
D. Symons: Is it the intention of B.C. Transit to maintain trollies and their current routes? Is there any possibility of expansion of trolley routes? Is that planned in the future?
Hon. D. Miller: They're there until about 2004. Obviously, in the interim, there's a lot of work being done in terms of some of these alternatives, and that work will inform us in terms of any future plans with respect to trolley buses.
D. Symons: I would have to interpret the minister's answer almost as a no, because the B.C. Transit Corporation is purchasing diesel fuel buses now, and that's going to go well past 2004. Those buses will have a shelf life longer than that, so if you're not really planning on replacing trolley buses, which is really what your answer said, it looks like there's no commitment to trollies. I gather they're zero-emission vehicles; that should be the way to go.
My next question is: is there a move, then, to standardize diesel buses? Why isn't there more interest in either natural-gas-powered vehicles, which I think are less polluting, or cleaner-fuel vehicles as alternatives to trollies?
Hon. D. Miller: I didn't want to give any particular slant but rather to illustrate that there is a variety of options that B.C. Transit is looking at. I don't think anybody should draw any conclusions based on what I'm saying here this evening. We do have CNGs. I forget what the number was that I read out. We've recently tested and purchased Ballard buses. The clean diesels are very efficient relative to what they used to be.
One of the things you've got to look at on the cost
[9:45]
D. Symons: In spite of how they've improved the diesel buses and low-sulphur diesel fuel, I think CNG is still a much cleaner-burning fuel. I wonder why B.C. Transit isn't showing more interest in that, because I gather from the buses you've bought over the past four years that there's a much greater proportion of diesel buses than CNG vehicles. Is that not true?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, there are emerging technologies. All I'm really trying to say is that we're evaluating all of those with respect to future options.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might move on to light rail and the proposed Broadway-Lougheed route. I note that the regional staff, in May of last year, were really recommending that other routes seemed to be more favourable. Mr. Rudberg explained that the New Westminster-Coquitlam Centre corridor is supported by the regional staff, as they believe it best supports the regional land use plan, by linking regional town centres. In spite of the government speaking so much of involving local people in decision-making, it would seem that the GVRD and other areas were really suggesting that the other route, the New Westminster-Coquitlam Centre route, was the favourable one. Yet the government seems to have moved toward the Broadway-Lougheed route. I just wonder if you might explain why the GVRD recommends one thing but B.C. Transit ends up implementing another.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that the GVRD has voted 100 percent in favour of the T-line.
D. Symons: I believe that was after the government sort of suggested that it was this route or no route. I suspect that that's more to do with them taking something rather than nothing.
I wonder if could just take a look at the possibility of light rapid transit. I'm reading from a report. Often the support for light rapid transit uses Calgary and Portland as examples of why we should be moving in that direction. I have the report of the House Interim Task Force on Light Rail to the Oregon Legislature, from July '95. It says:
[ Page 1871 ]
"Light rail clearly provides benefits, but the question is whether it will achieve goals in a cost-effective manner. The system will cost an enormous amount of money and serve relatively few riders. Ridership has been growing on light rail but not to the levels originallyThey seem to have second thoughts on expanding their light rail system in Portland, which we've used as a shining example of how to go. We seem to be moving into areas where they're now showing some hesitation in continuing. I wonder if there might be some re-evaluation of what you're planning to do along Broadway.projected.... "The MAX experience has seen negligible increase in ridership at great expense and may even have slightly decreased overall transit ridership. Portland should stop construction of the west-side line and not further consider the south-north line."
Hon. D. Miller: I can only repeat that I'm sure the GVRD is a body comprised of very senior municipal officials, and they know what they're doing. They've accepted it, so I guess the answer is no.
D. Symons: One of the concerns, I guess, in putting various transit systems in is that quite often governments make the decision and then the local people are made to pay, in the sense that a relationship has to be worked out on how to finance it. I gather that the engineering studies the agreement financing and so forth are to be in place in June of next year. Already there seems to be a real commitment to the Broadway-Lougheed line, but you don't yet have an agreement with the local governments on how to fund that line. Is that true?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it's true. Just getting back to the reference to Portland, it appears that the regional plan that the GVRD has with respect to that route makes this particular choice more compelling, unlike in Portland, and we are working on a protocol.
D. Symons: I was going to try and flip back here to some data I have from Portland. Let's see if I can pick it out in a hurry. I find this sort of interesting. The Portland transit authority certainly seems to gather a great deal of information, which I would welcome from B.C. Transit, on bus performance, the average weekly ridership, boarding rides, originating rides, and so forth. They go through that for costs. There are piles of information in here that are most interesting.
They have a light rail performance sheet, as well. As you get toward the bottom of it, you see that they have the average train speed in miles per hour -- remember, they still have the old British system down there. Their light rapid rail goes roughly 14 miles per hour. If you consider what speed the traffic and the buses move along Broadway, it wouldn't be much different than that. I don't know whether you are going to achieve the increase in speed that is necessary in order to encourage people to get out of their cars. If you manage to maintain the same sort of average speed that the Portland system does, if you look at
I'm not too sure whether you'll achieve the speeds, even with the traffic control systems you may put in place with rapid rail. You're still going to have this tied in with street traffic and everything else along that route. As I say, unless the speed is there, I don't know that ridership will follow.
Hon. D. Miller: We're shooting for an average of 29 kilometres per hour. I'm advised, as well, that these systems do work in European cities. Portland is not the only place, you know; you've got to look around a little bit, I think. It's a nice city, though. I kind of like it down there. You can get on the old transit thing for free downtown, and they've got some of the best statues I've ever seen. They've done a really nice redevelopment of the downtown area. They also -- just for other members who have not had a chance to be there -- have one of the best bookstores I've ever been in: Powell's bookstore. I highly recommend it, if you're going down there. You can take the bus. It's easy to get to.
D. Symons: If B.C. Transit will take me there, I'll use my transit pass, get on and head down there. I rode up with the motorman, as a matter of fact, on most of the Calgary system, just a year ago. I managed to talk my way into the front by the controller there and ride around that system. Except for the ten-block ride on 7th Avenue in the downtown area, it moves quite rapidly through the town. But in that ten-block ride, where you have street after street, it doesn't move at great speeds. So I hope the system will get the speed that you've indicated.
If we could just move back to the buses for a
Hon. D. Miller: It appears that the conventional
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: One is 38 minutes, and we're hoping to save five minutes on that, which translates roughly into a 15 percent to 20 percent saving.
D. Symons: I have some concern as to whether the cost -- I think it's over $100 million -- for implementing the rapid bus system is really warranted for a five-minute saving of time. If you put $100 million into putting in a rapid bus
Hon. D. Miller: You really have to look at the issue in more detail. I'm not totally familiar with it myself, but obviously there is a considerable saving in time over the number of riders that use the system, and the consequent saving on the capital side and the operating side. Those who have those calculations believe it is.
[ Page 1872 ]
D. Symons: Continuing with that, the express buses that go from Richmond currently discharge passengers only on the Vancouver side at various transfer points. They don't make other stops, and they don't take Vancouver passengers onto the buses as they go through from Marpole into downtown Vancouver. Will that be the same with the express bus? Is that the plan?
I'll lump two or three questions to do with this all together. I notice that these buses are going to have three sets of doors and that basically people will board at all points, so we're going to duplicate the case of the Sky Train stations. There won't be anybody fare-checking at two of the sets of doors, anyway. There will be a driver at the front set of doors, but there will be two other sets of doors where there will be no fare-checkers. Are we going to have more problems of fare evasion?
Finally, to throw in the third question here, bringing this in probably means that there are currently no long-term plans at B.C. Transit for bringing rapid transit to Richmond.
Hon. D. Miller: No. 1: yes, the buses will stop and pick people up, so it's not the same. No. 2: the system is the same, really; it's a prepaid system, the same as SkyTrain. No, I don't think there's much planning in terms of the future of LRT.
D. Symons: I have just one last question on what affects me and my riding, of course, and rapid buses. Can you tell me whether the rapid buses will do what the current express buses do? They begin at the end of some of the routes in Richmond, go through Richmond picking up passengers as a regular bus, and then start from the central point of Richmond and carry on into Vancouver as an express bus. Or will the rapid buses have some point that all of the other buses will feed into, so that there will be, for most people, a transfer involved in getting onto the rapid buses from local buses? Is that the plan?
[10:00]
Hon. D. Miller: No, they'd basically be collector buses.
D. Symons: On the Richmond side.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, on the Richmond side.
D. Symons: So, basically, it's going to be doing the same thing as the current express buses.
I note that there was an ad in the June 19, 1996, Vancouver Sun that invited people to prequalify for engineering and project services on the Richmond-Vancouver rapid bus project -- planning and preliminary engineering assignment. They're asking people to prequalify for it in this ad. I'm wondering two things: (1) there were nine days to reply to the ad, which seems a short time; and (2) we have a freeze now on that particular project -- I believe it is one of the freezes. Is this ad in freeze mode as well, or are you still hiring somebody for that particular task?
Hon. D. Miller: No, it's in a big chill.
D. Symons: Again on alternative transit -- either rapid buses or, more likely, light rapid rail. Has the government looked at using public-private partnership funding for these, and have you put out feelers to investors to look particularly at the Broadway-Lougheed line?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, it's fairly early. I suspect that that issue is more complex in this business than in some of the conventional areas we're looking at, and even there we're not fully up to speed. We're waiting for a report.
D. Symons: I would just point out to the minister that I believe B.C. Transit is involved in a partnership in constructing SkyTrain technology in Malaysia. I believe that project is being funded by Malaysian business interests, and it's partly guaranteed by the Malaysian government. I am just suggesting that as B.C. Transit is already involved in that type of arrangement, would it not be possible that they consider doing that at home, as well? I also heard that the original 30-kilometre light rapid system they were putting in has been somewhat downsized. Is that correct? Is the whole project still going ahead in Malaysia? Maybe the minister could make some comments on public-private partnership funding.
Hon. D. Miller: I gather we're doing some training there, but that's the extent of our involvement.
D. Symons: Just one last comment on the partnership ones. I'm reading from some Labour literature from Great Britain, and it starts off by talking about Labour promoting quality local services. It says that the Tories have centralized power and reduced the ability of local communities to meet their needs. Labour believes that local people are the best judge of local priorities, and the public service must respond to local needs while also guaranteeing top quality and excellent value for money -- something that the local NDP might also agree with. It goes on to say, toward the end of this that Labour will promote partnership with local businesses and local communities to attract investment and create new jobs. Labour in Action has delivered effective public-private partnerships, like the hugely successful partnership in Manchester which is helping to revitalize the local economy through a cheap, efficient light rail system. Again, I strongly suggest that maybe this government, being related to their cousins in England, would look at public-private partnerships as a way to fund some of the much-needed transit systems we need in the lower mainland.
Hon. D. Miller: I've no doubt that Labour is going to get elected in Great Britain. Thank goodness!
D. Symons: That's because they are involved in using the private sector, as well.
I realize the
I will go as quickly as I can here to a traffic signal in Surrey. Apparently there was a $70,000 traffic signal to be set up at the transit system in Surrey -- what do you call it where the buses come in? -- at an exchange area. Due to some dispute over who was going to pay for the traffic signal, B.C. Transit funded approximately -- and I gather it would be over this -- $800,000 worth of employees' time to act as crossing guards. I'm wondering if you might give us some idea of why that went on for that length of time. I was reading this report in October 28, 1995, and there it said that they were going to bring this to a conclusion. But apparently it went on, and the crossing guards were still there for another six months. What was the total cost of that exercise?
Hon. D. Miller: I don't know.
[ Page 1873 ]
D. Symons: It would have been cheaper if B.C. Transit had paid for a $70,000 traffic light rather than the $800,000 for employees to sit there holding traffic signs. As a matter of fact, I was there and went through the crossing guards doing that. Apparently, they're bus drivers on sick leave or disability leave.
Moving on to the handyDART system, I wonder if you might be able to give
Hon. D. Miller: There's a labour dispute over here, I think, in Victoria somewhere. When I was the Minister of Labour, everybody was threatening me with dire consequences if I didn't get that handyDART system back and running right away, because taxis just couldn't do the job. So I guess there are probably a variety of opinions out there.
If the member might indicate some sense of the time
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Fair enough.
D. Symons: I'm wondering if you might give me an idea, since you talked about a problem with handyDARTs in Victoria, how many handyDART vehicles there are in Victoria and how many employees might be involved in that. Would those be figures you would have?
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, is this not a matter of public information? Is it a secret that's buried somewhere in the tombs? Is it not something that can be unearthed by a simple phone call any day of the week? I could supply it, but there's got to be a purpose in this exercise other than counting buses.
D. Symons: Well, the purpose is that we
Interjection.
D. Symons: I'm doing B.C. Transit. I don't know how many million dollars it is, but I've been given one hour. So far I haven't even had
Hon. D. Miller: They're your colleagues, my friend.
D. Symons: You were giving extremely long, verbose answers to the prior questions.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, now -- isn't that something?
The Chair: Order, members.
Hon. D. Miller: Really, Mr. Chairman, after four days of outrageous behaviour on Hydro, I have to listen to this nonsense about my answers taking too long? I mean, really -- come on. Let's get on with it and get out of here. This is nonsense.
The Chair: Perhaps the member might consider putting questions in writing to the minister, and he'll get responses later on.
D. Symons: He's got quite a bit he's going to give me already, so I think we'll just finish off. I'm sorry, but I think I have every right to ask the questions I care to ask. If the minister doesn't care to answer them, we'll just prolong the agony.
Anyway, what I'm trying to get at here is the issue of whether handyDART might be the best way of supplying transit service to the handicapped. There are a fair number of them, and I'm told that about 80 percent of the people that are handicapped are able to walk and that we might be using taxis more effectively. There are groups that are disabled that are promoting that sort of idea. I'm simply asking what the government is looking at in that respect. The minister seems frustrated with the question, which that I think is an important question for the handicapped people in British Columbia. There are many areas that buses can't get into readily, and there are problems with the handyDART system, where you have to book two or three days in advance. A taxi can give them service in a couple of hours.
Hon. D. Miller: I was only
D. Symons: I might remind the minister that he was in Portland, and he was the one who saw the bookstores and gave me this nice tour around Portland a few minutes ago. He's talking about taking time. I mean, go back and review Hansard and look at your answer to that question. I rode around Calgary, you may remember. I mean, you decide when you want to give verbose answers, and you decide when you want to get angry at things taking time. I'm just responding.
Interjection.
D. Symons: Well, I think it's relevant to determine the usage of those buses and the number of people they might carry per hour, and whether indeed paying $45 or $50 an hour to operate a bus system for moving a few disabled people around is economically effectively, compared to using a taxi system that is already there. That's the point.
Let's move on. Last year's ten-year capital plan included a 50 percent increase in Victoria's bus system from the current 165, roughly, to 250. It works out to an average of eight buses a year, so I'm wondering how much is budgeted this year for replacement buses or new buses for Victoria.
Hon. D. Miller: There are 11 new and 12 replacement. The buses are here and go in in September.
D. Symons: Going again to that ten-year capital plan for buses and transit, the capital regional district and B.C. Transit
[ Page 1874 ]
report basically came out and put heavy reliance on buses, not on light rapid transit. Yet there was some criticism of that report from people, and I gather that there was a new study initiated in November last year, where the government unveiled a light rail transit implementation strategy, in spite of the fact that the ferry report just previous to that had indicated that light rail wasn't really on the books for the Victoria area. So I am wondering: why introduce a new study when you had one less than two years previous to that? Rather than spend somewhere upwards of $300,000 on a new study, maybe you could have just reworked the old study and come up with different conclusions from the same material.
Hon. D. Miller: The cost of the study, phase 1, was $125,000.
D. Symons: Is there a phase 2? What would that cost be?
If we just look at the ferry report, then, it seemed to indicate that putting money into a light rapid transit system didn't make economic sense for the Victoria area, and it recommended against it. What changed in the two-year interval between then and November of last year -- less than two years -- when we decided to study the issue again?
[10:15]
Hon. D. Miller: I understand there were some flaws with that report, and we're continuing to study the issue.
D. Symons: Just back to Richmond for a moment. Richmond was asking for some improvements in transit recently. Basically, B.C. Transit came back to them and said that there are no minibuses for Richmond, no rapid transit, no service to the new pool off No. 6 Road and no direct bus service into Metrotown -- that's a lot of noes.
One of the things they did ask for was to have some buses that would circle Richmond rather than, as they do now, hub into the centre and then feed into the express buses. The reason
Hon. D. Miller: The decision is made by the Vancouver regional transit commission, and Richmond is represented there.
D. Symons: I had a question passed onto me here. The wants to know if Transit would make improvements soon to the Seymour Parkway-Deep Cove and to the Phibbs exchange, and talks about full-time drivers and not the use of spare
Hon. D. Miller: It's an ongoing issue. Obviously, we always look at these requests for system improvements, or specific routing, and those kinds of things. It's not decided here. It's decided by the Transit people in conjunction with regional people. If cases are made, they'll look at them.
Vote 44 approved.
Vote 49: ministry operations, $116,596,000 -- approved.
Vote 50: Tourism B.C., $23,408,000 -- approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the committee rise and report resolutions.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:19 p.m.