1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999
Morning
Volume 15, Number 12
[ Page 12867 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(continued)
B. Penner: On Tuesday afternoon I asked the minister for a detailed breakdown of the various component costs of the photo radar program. At that time the minister indicated that he hoped he could give me that information by Wednesday morning. Yesterday evening I asked again, and at that time the minister didn't have that information.
It's now Thursday morning. I wonder if the minister is in a position to provide us with the detailed breakdown of the various costs of the photo radar program, including process serving, photo radar equipment maintenance costs, ticket processing and the like.
Hon. D. Lovick: I understand that the information is available. We're not discussing ICBC estimates at the moment, but I would imagine that the information is available and should be sent to the member immediately. As I say, I'm advised that we have assembled the material he wants, and I'm pleased to do that.
K. Krueger: Turning briefly to the human resources branch, the ministry briefing binder talks about ongoing support by this branch of negotiations involving new labour market arrangements with the federal government in the labour market development agreement. I wonder if the minister could update the House on the status of those matters.
Hon. D. Lovick: As the member knows, the human resources branch function is shared by more than one ministry. That particular part of the human resources branch activity is the provenance of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.
[1010]
K. Krueger: Yesterday the minister gave us the good news that the regulation had been enacted with regard to fresh evidence of membership. I wonder if the minister could tell us how many certifications proceeded, between the time that Bill 26 was proclaimed and yesterday, that would have been affected by the delay in enacting that regulation.Hon. D. Lovick: I will dig out that information for the member and send it to him. The predicament is that the annual report for the LRB wouldn't capture all of the time frame that the member refers to. But there's also, I think, a quarterly report. So if we put the two together, we can probably get him that information and will do so.
K. Krueger: Thank you.
The minister had made a commitment last year during the debate on Bill 26 that the provisions on fresh evidence of membership would be in place before Bill 26 was proclaimed. I'd like the minister to comment, therefore, on the implications of the delay and the reasons for the delay.
Hon. D. Lovick: The delay in proclaiming that particular part of the measure had to do with the undertaking we had given to the parties that we would not use our legislation to affect what might have happened last August; rather, it was forward-looking. Therefore we were trying to capture the rating period for this July and this August. That's the primary reason. I don't think it's had any negative impact on anybody -- or has had any effect at all, as far as I can make out.
C. Hansen: About a year and a half ago there was quite a controversy that developed surrounding employment standards regulations for child actors in British Columbia. At that time a great deal of concern was expressed by parents on the implications it would have for their children and the careers of their children. At the time a commitment was made that there would be a review of those regulations 18 months later. The 18 months have now passed, and I'm wondering if the minister could give us an update on what's happening in terms of that review of regulations.
Hon. D. Lovick: My information is that the review is indeed underway.
C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us what form the review is taking, how long the time line is for this and what kind of consultations are taking place with parents? That, I think, was the big problem initially: that they weren't brought into the consultation. What can we expect, and when, as a result of this review?
Hon. D. Lovick: I don't believe there is a set time line, but I am advised that it's sooner rather than later. I'm advised, as well, that there is a fairly elaborate consultation part built into the review, and the parents are part of that consultation.
K. Krueger: At a recent peaceful rally that was organized in Nanaimo, the minister attended with, I'm advised, a number of union people, presumably from his constituency. Altercations ensued, and I've been receiving e-mails and telephone calls and correspondence from people who were there and who are very offended by the fact that a Minister of Labour
[ Page 12868 ]
would have conducted himself in that way. I want to give the minister an opportunity, on the record, to explain himself and to deal with that, if he'd like to.
[1015]
Hon. D. Lovick: The question that the member poses has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my estimates. Last night I was very patient. Quite frankly, I put up with, for a very long time, questions that were absolutely out of order, that were a total waste of the time of this assembly. Despite various admonitions from the Chair to the member, he persisted in that line of questioning. We wasted at least an hour last night. I am not so patient today. I'm not going to do that again. I am not going to answer questions that are out of order, that have nothing to do with the operation of my ministry.Regarding the question that the member has posed, I have spoken on numerous occasions to explain what occurred, and I'm prepared to do so again, but I'm not going to use the time of this House and these estimates to do so.
The Chair: The Chair would also caution members that we're dealing with the administrative actions of the departments of the Ministry of Labour.
K. Krueger: The minister has been quick to agree that there are parallels, in some ways, between his role and the role of the Attorney General. There are people throughout this province who depend on the minister fulfilling his role as Minister of Labour. I'd like to ask if the minister feels that the incident in Nanaimo and his behaviour there was respectful of his role as Minister of Labour.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Labour has a duty to the people of British Columbia to perform his job in a respectful manner. And he shows
The Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please.
G. Farrell-Collins:
The Chair: Member, could you take your seat, please.
The Chair has made a caution in regard to this subject, and I would suggest that members deal with the administrative actions of the Ministry of Labour in these estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Labour has a duty to the people of British Columbia -- all the people of British Columbia, not a select group, not a select few, not those ones that happen to be his friends and supporters but all of them. I think it sends a huge message to people around British Columbia who have to deal on a daily basis with the Ministry of Labour, when the Minister of Labour shows up at a political rally with several hundred union activists in an attempt to disrupt and destroy a legitimate public meeting.
Now, those people
The Chair: Member
G. Farrell-Collins:
The Chair: Member, could you take your seat, please.
G. Farrell-Collins:
The Chair: The Chair has made a ruling in this regard. We will deal with the estimates in this forum.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Labour, through his office, through his duties, through his responsibilities under the various pieces of legislation that he oversees, needs to be seen to be unbiased, needs to be seen to be doing the job on behalf of all British Columbians. The deportment of the Minister of Labour comes into that.
Does the Minister of Labour think that his behaviour has sent that message out there publicly to the people of British Columbia, who need to deal with the Ministry of Labour? Now, I know the minister doesn't want to answer these questions, because his deportment has been so biased and so disgraceful. I also understand
The Chair: Member, could you take your seat, please.
G. Farrell-Collins:
The Chair: Member, take your seat, please.
G. Farrell-Collins: He doesn't need to
The Chair: If members continue in this vein, showing disrespect for the Chair, the Chair will take appropriate action.
G. Farrell-Collins: Nothing that I am asking the Minister of Labour is outside the purview of his office and his duties to the people of British Columbia.
The Chair: Member, will you take your seat, please. You are showing disrespect for the Chair. The Chair has made a ruling in this regard, and the member knows the rules and what can follow from this.
On the estimates, member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.
[1020]
G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Labour has a duty to the people of British Columbia, as a minister of the Crown, to behave and deal with the people that report to, that deal with, that have to deal with the Ministry of Labour on a daily basis. The minister has a responsibility. Those are his duties as a member of the executive council and, more particularly, his duties as Minister of Labour. That is his job. That is what he is paid for, and within the estimates of the Ministry of Labour is the salary of the Minister of Labour, his office, his deportment, the people who answer the phones on his behalf.
Now, whether or not the Minister of Labour chooses to be accountable and responsible for his actions as the Minister of Labour is something the Minister of Labour should stand up and defend -- not the table officer of this House. Now, if the Minister of Labour is unwilling to defend himself and to defend his deportment
[ Page 12869 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: Point of order. Hon. Chair, it seems to me that you have ruled very clearly that the only debate permitted under standing order 61 is the administrative actions of a department. If the members want to try and abuse the rules of this chamber -- as they consistently do in order to make some cheap political points and to say things of which they, frankly, aren't even aware or acquainted -- then it seems to me that we're wasting the time of this House.I am here today to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. I'm ready to answer those questions in detail, to the best of my ability. I am not prepared to sit here and listen to insults and personal attack from the member opposite, who doesn't even know whereof he speaks.
The Chair: The Chair will again caution members that we are dealing with appropriations within the Ministry of Labour.
Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to add my words to the point of order raised by the Minister of Labour. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Labour has a duty to administer the legislation under his purview. The Minister of Labour has a duty to deal with the Labour Relations Board and the employment standards branch. The Minister of Labour deals regularly with both employers and members of the trade unions around British Columbia. It is critical -- and the minister himself has said it -- that he be seen to be unbiased and balanced in his approach. My question to the minister is: does he believe his past behaviour
The Chair: Member, you're on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know that, and I'm explaining why the question is legitimate, hon. Chair. That's part of it.
The Chair: Thank you, member, for the point.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not finished advice on the point of order.
The Chair: Member, please take your seat. The member is arguing specifically with the Chair's ruling. The Chair has made a ruling in this regard. Your point was argumentative.
K. Krueger: In 1994 there was a serious labour dispute in Port Alberni involving TNL Construction, and a number of union activists were criminally convicted as a result. I wonder if the minister could advise the House how many of those people were with him at the rally in Nanaimo.
Interjections.
The Chair: The Chair is going to remind members to review standing order 20 at this time. I should suggest that members review standing order 20 and then consider what they want to ask the minister.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members.
K. Krueger: Obviously the minister doesn't want to avail himself of this opportunity to deal with the matter on the record in the House, which probably surprises nobody. In the course of this debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, we got one piece of good news. That was that the minister had at last acted yesterday on his fresh evidence of membership commitment made a year ago. That was one piece of good news.
We got a lot of bad news with regard to the government's inability -- apparently; certainly unwillingness -- to change its approach with regard to unbalanced labour laws and massive overregulation and their effects on job creation -- the devastation of job creation in British Columbia through the Employment Standards Act. We've had very little assurance from the minister with regard to the huge credibility issues around the Labour Relations Board, its chair and at least one of its vice-chairs. There's a general attitude of cynicism, at best, and outright disrespect toward the ministry and this minister throughout this province. It's a very destructive thing for the economy of British Columbia, which will not shape up until these things are corrected.
[1025]
The minister's refusal to account for or apologize for his behaviour in Nanaimo will not help his credibility at all. I see very little purpose in pursuing a further line of questioning with this minister on the Ministry of Labour, because I don't think he has any credibility at all in the role. I'll be asking no further questions.G. Farrell-Collins: I have one question to the Minister of Labour, which directly relates to his ministry. I hope he answers it, because we'll be able to obtain the information through freedom of information. Did he or any members of his staff make any phone calls from his offices to members organizing the rally in Nanaimo -- his participation in the rally in Nanaimo?
Hon. D. Lovick: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.
K. Krueger: Given that answer, I guess I will ask one more question. One of the eyewitnesses who has provided me with an affidavit about the events of that night indicates that there were several government cars in the parking lot, and he believes that the union activists were chauffeured there in government vehicles. Is that valid? Is that accurate?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, the member, alas, seems to be simply lying.
The Chair: Minister, that is not acceptable. I'll have to ask you to withdraw.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I just realized
Vote 39 approved on division.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, I call now the estimates of the Ministry Responsible for the Public Service.
[ Page 12870 ]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
On vote 54: Public Service Employee Relations Commission, $12,891,000.
[1030]
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll start these estimates with a short comment. In this ministry we essentially have three responsibilities: first, to oversee the development of economic policy within the government and to coordinate economic initiatives; second, to deal with issues relating to the public service and the Public Service Employee Relations Commission as well; and third, to deal with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I look forward to the debate.C. Clark: I'd like to start out with some of the issues with respect to just the public service, if we can, then talk about the economic policy that the minister is part of coordinating, and finish off with discussions about BCBC. That is just to give the minister's officials a sense of the order we're going to go in.
If we start out with the public service and the way it's organized
Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Mochrie is the deputy. I haven't seen the two charts that were given to the hon. member. It might be easier if I gave the chart that I have to the hon. member; that would then clarify the confusion. If there's a third version, it's the official version. Let me just table this. I have no problem with the member taking a look at it.
C. Clark: We have to assume that the official version is always the most recent one, with this government.
Can the minister tell us where the staff support is in his ministry for the cabinet coordination role that he's been given by the Premier?
Hon. M. Sihota: I made a very conscious decision not to engage much in terms of extra staff, but to utilize existing staff resources. What I do in terms of the coordination attributes of the portfolio is use existing staff complements within different ministries and different budgets. So when I have an issue that I'm dealing with, I'll just simply request that those staff deal with the matter. That makes it very efficient.
C. Clark: Does that mean the staff are on secondment to this minister when he decides he wants to get involved in another ministry? Or does it mean that if the minister gets involved, those employees stay at that ministry but the regular minister's power is usurped by this minister as the ultimate decision-maker?
Hon. M. Sihota: What it means is that if I need help from another ministry, I'll phone up those staff and ask them to do additional work or to clarify issues for me. Secondly, in terms of usurping power, I wouldn't say that any of that goes on. We have a team setup here, and we coordinate our matters on a job-sharing basis.
C. Clark: The way I understand the bureaucracy is that individuals in the bureaucracy have a reporting structure, and the reporting structure normally ends up at the ministerial level. Now, I'm trying to clarify where a second minister fits into the reporting structure for a given civil servant on a given day when the minister might decide he wants to affect their decision that day. How does that work? How do the ministry and the government avoid confusion about who's making decisions when civil servants are getting different directions -- or new directions, perhaps -- from a minister they're not technically responsible to, when they may have a different direction from a minister they are technically responsible to?
[1035]
Hon. M. Sihota: We have horizontal ministries within government. Not all ministries are vertical. Take, for example, the Ministry of Women's Equality. It's a horizontal ministry in the sense that it will interact with a whole range of ministries to make sure that government priorities and objectives are being met. Exactly the same happens here. What we'll do is phone up staff if we're dealing with an issue, and we'll talk to them to make sure that the file moves along with some dispatch.Let me give the member an example. Let's take one that's recent: Western Star Trucks. Being involved with that file, making sure that that file gets handled with dispatch, just means working with the existing staff to make sure that any issues that need to be ironed out are being ironed out with some dispatch, rather than allowing the matter to get caught up in the process.
Reporting relationships are pretty straightforward. I'll usually have a little chat with the minister that's involved in the file, tell him or her that I'm going to be giving them a hand on this file. We're going to try to move it forward. It's usually a matter of government priority. It's usually been discussed in cabinet. And then I'll work in concert with that minister to move the file along.
C. Clark: The minister has led me to believe that with the Western Star Trucks case there was no disagreement amongst the ministers about the government's decision with respect to giving the company a bunch of money. But I'm wondering about other decisions that might be more controversial within the government, where there might be one ministry disagreeing with another ministry and there might be two ministers on opposite sides of an issue. How does the reporting structure work in cases where there is some controversy about a decision?
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, we have no friction in our machine. It's a very smooth-running machine.
C. Clark: So, for example, salmon farming
[ Page 12871 ]
to leave the moratorium in place. What I'm concerned about, quite frankly, is the poor civil servant who's at the end of this battle between the ministers. They are technically responsible to the minister that they report to. That's their job -- to report up the ladder, take their direction. Now suddenly there's a new minister who comes in and usurps the power of their previous boss. How do they resolve that? Are employees of the government now all of the understanding that when the Minister Responsible for the Public Service issues a request, that request must take priority over all of the other people that they technically are supposed to report to?Hon. M. Sihota: I should advise the hon. member that the appeal board does fall within the mandate of this office -- in reference to the first question that she asked.
On the question that she just asked now
J. Sawicki: If I may interrupt the member's questioning of the Minister Responsible for the Public Service to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Sawicki: Today I have in the galleries 40 visitors of grade 9 from Burnaby Central Secondary School in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. They are accompanied by five adults and their teacher Mr. Hayward. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.
[1040]
C. Clark: So the minister is suggesting, then, that there is never a conflict in the direction that he gives to employees of other ministries, when he reaches into another minister's purview. And the direction that those employees are getting from their minister -- there's never any conflict in that. There's never any conflicting direction that's given by him and the minister that those employees report to. Is that correct?Hon. M. Sihota: We're masters at conflict resolution.
C. Clark: Well, what direction do employees have, then, when in fact there may be a potential conflict between the two directions that they're getting from various ministers? What direction do they operate under? Is there a guideline that they should pick up the Minister Responsible for the Public Service's call first -- I see the minister nodding -- and take his direction first? Or should they take the direction of their responsible minister first? I'm just wondering what guidelines public servants are being asked to operate under in those kinds of cases.
Hon. M. Sihota: The way it works is that cabinet will make a policy determination, and if there are issues between the ministries they will be resolved either at the cabinet or the cabinet committee level. Staff are then advised as to the decision that cabinet or the cabinet committee makes. They're given instructions to act in accordance with that decision; it's pretty straightforward. So if there are issues between ministers, they're resolved at the cabinet table, if they can't be resolved informally, or through the cabinet committee process prior to their arrival in cabinet.
C. Clark: Well, let's take an example: salmon farming or aquaculture. There was a decision that started out as a moratorium. There was a lot of work done on lifting the moratorium. There were statements made by the government that the moratorium would likely come off. Staff were presumably working under that direction. Now it appears that the moratorium is staying on. It seems to an outsider -- and, I think, to people that work in the various ministries -- that they were getting conflicting directions from various ministers throughout that process. There was a process that clearly wasn't resolved at the cabinet level until very recently, when the Minister of Environment said that the moratorium's staying on. So there was a long period where there was conflict between cabinet ministers. You had some cabinet ministers saying one thing and some cabinet ministers who clearly didn't want to change the decision.
What happened, for example, in that particular case?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure if the question is "What happened?" or "What is happening?" But let me deal with that issue. I can see why the hon. member's confused. She's been reading the press too much and perhaps not making inquiries through other routes. It's terribly dangerous for one to try to secure information from our good friends in the press gallery -- all of whom, I'm sure, are tuned in to this debate.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, that would never be the case, hon. member.
In that kind of a situation
[1045]
There's a lot of confusion out there, and that confusion ought to be eliminated. We hoped to terminate that confusion by the middle of February. We had a work plan that was designed to try to move us towards certain dates. All the ministries involved felt that they could come to a solution around the intricate issues involved on that file around the middle of February. So we indicated that we would try to give an answer -- that we would give an answer -- to the public around the middle of February.
[ Page 12872 ]
Unfortunately -- and sometimes this happens -- all of the work that needs to be done has not been completed. So until then, the status quo will remain. I don't think that's particularly a new revelation. We're working on that file. We're working with the ministries. I should hasten to add, to the hon. member, that my reading of that file is that there's not necessarily conflict between the various ministries. I think that all of the ministries involved are working, I would say, very cooperatively -- almost harmoniously -- to try to move towards a resolution that's to the government's liking.We on this side of the House -- unlike the members opposite -- believe that a cornerstone of economic policy is an appropriate blending of environmental and economic issues to make sure that we take steps to generate employment, but not at the expense of the environment. So it's on that broad rubric, which has always defined us as a political party, that the work's being carried out. Staff know that. They know the broad philosophical rubric that these decisions should be made under. They'll be made under that rubric.
C. Clark: That would explain Burns Bog, I guess, for example -- the government's decision on Burns Bog. That would have been, in the minister's view, a perfect blending of economic and environmental principles. Would that have fit into his rubric?
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, you know, I can't recollect all of the details of the Burns Bog situation. I'm sure that if someone wants it, they can send me up the fact pattern. But that's generally the way the government tries to work.
It does distinguish us from members opposite, because members opposite don't have a green bone in their bodies. There are times of political opportunism when the member's political party opposite will try to sort of subscribe to an environmental ethic, but it's not really there. Most people know that. In fact, it would seem to me that she's better off to ask that question to her own party, because on this side of the House we generally try to work under that rubric.
We have a tremendous track record of doing that, decision after decision, whether it's Ballard Power Systems and the work that we're doing there on the clean air file, whether it's the Forest Practices Code -- which, I hasten to add, the members opposite voted against -- or the clean air regulations to which the Transportation critic asks, "Why do we have to have the toughest in North America?" or whether it's our policy to ensure that there isn't industrial activity in parks, which members opposite opposed.
So generally, yes, we try to work under that rubric. Whatever the outcome of Burns Bog -- and I wouldn't want to pre-guess what the outcome will be -- I'm sure that it'll work under that rubric.
C. Clark: The minister has been involved in the Burns Bog file, we know. Maybe this would be another example and give us another window into the way the reporting structure in this ministry works. The government made a decision, announced a decision about Burns Bog -- that they were going to take the lungs of the lower mainland and develop it as a commercial theme park. Then the government, when they realized that the public was strongly opposed to it, backed off.
So there was a case where the government decided that it fit into its rubric; it fit into its vision for balancing the environment with industrial development. They found that it was a perfect example. The government charged ahead with it. Then the minister got involved after the fact and changed the decision, I understand. So is that a case where the minister, deciding to bolt the door after the horse had charged out, decided that he was going to start delivering direction to another ministry's employees that were clearly contradicting the decision that the minister responsible had issued on the subject?
[1050]
Hon. M. Sihota: The member says Burns Bog is the lungs of Vancouver. You know, we have an outstanding track record in terms of protecting the quality of the air in Vancouver. After all, we've protected Pinecone Lake-Burke Mountain; we've created a new park at Indian Arm; we've acquired a whole number of islands along the Fraser River to protect those for future generations. We've done Big Bend in Surrey. I never heard the member opposite stand up in the House and ask for this, but we protected Mount Burnaby up at SFU. I could go on.On top of the toughest clean air regs in Canada being introduced and the leading technology in terms of clean air, in terms of Ballard technologies, we have one of the best environmental records when it comes to clean air. I can assure the hon. member that anything we do at Burns Bog will respect those environmental attributes and our desire to do something that the members opposite have always opposed, which is protecting the environment -- one of the cleavage issues between us and them, if you were to ask me.
Yes, I'd get involved in those kinds of issues from time to time. We'll kick the tires with the ministers and just see where we're going. It's certainly very appropriate for us to sort of talk, from time to time, around any issues that are salient.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I hear the members talk about Burns Bog. You know, it is amazing; it really is amazing. Not once, in fact, if I recollect properly, during the time I had the privilege to serve as Minister of Environment did they even get up in the House and ask me a question about Burns Bog. And all of a sudden, today they want to talk about Burns Bog. You know, we'll make a decision there that will be outstanding, I think, in terms of paying attention to our environmental legacy as a party.
So I would say to the hon. member that, yes, we'll continue to have talks about it. It's an issue that has gone to cabinet. It's an issue that is a matter of public importance, and at the end of the day, the public will come to see, in terms of the work that we're doing as a government on that, that it builds on our remarkable environmental track record.
C. Clark: The minister says that the government will make a decision about Burns Bog and that it will be an outstanding decision. Well, the government already has made a decision about Burns Bog. Now they've backed off from the decision; they changed the decision. But they made a decision about it. So how would the minister
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member is awfully confused. She spends too much time reading the paper, and she should just delve into the facts.
[ Page 12873 ]
There are a number of issues that remain outstanding with regards to Burns Bog, if I may use that word in another context. You know, there are deadlines. There is sort of a June 1 requirement; there are issues before Delta. We've indicated that we have a desire to protect the integrity of the bog, and I think that future generations will commend this government for its initiatives in that regard.C. Clark: The minister says that he kicks the tires of the ministers from time to time. Did he kick the tires of this particular minister with respect to this particular issue?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's no different from the members opposite, who get together every once in a while, I'm sure, and chat about issues. We do the same.
C. Clark: What I'm trying to get at is: what was the minister's direct involvement in this issue? When he says that he kicked the tires of the other ministers on the issue
Hon. M. Sihota: We talked about it.
C. Clark: Thank you. Was that part of the minister's overall decision-making role as one of the members of this economic A team? Did he do it in that role, and is that a role that gives him the authority to be able to order a minister to withdraw a decision?
Hon. M. Sihota: I would never order a minister to do anything.
C. Clark: How many times did the minister meet with proponents, various interest groups and the minister responsible as well as public servants with respect to Burns Bog?
Hon. M. Sihota: I can't remember.
C. Clark: Well, was it more than ten? Was it more than 20? Was it more than 50? Maybe the minister could ballpark it for us.
Interjection.
C. Clark: So more than ten, but less than 20. Did most of these
[1055]
Interjection.
C. Clark: Oh, the minister says that he may have misled me. Well, thanks. I'll give him the opportunity
Hon. M. Sihota: The answer is: none of the above.
C. Clark: Well, the minister's daytimer shows us that he did meet about Burns Bog. I'm just trying to establish how often the minister met about this issue and when those meetings occurred.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member has my daytimer; she FOI'd it. I don't have it here with me. I'm sure she's got the information as to when the discussions happened.
C. Clark: The minister knows that his daytimer is heavily severed. There's some
We've established that he did have some meetings about it. We're not able to establish how many, except by asking the minister. So all we're asking is: approximately how many meetings did the minister have about the Burns Bog issue? And when did they occur -- before or after the decision was made and then retracted?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure that there are literally hundreds of British Columbians lying awake at night wondering how many times I've met with staff on Burns Bog. It must be the most salient issue on the minds of British Columbians -- at least, if the opposition is asking it, I'm sure it must be that salient.
I don't remember exactly when I met. The member said: "Did you meet more than ten times, more than 20 times or more than 50 times?" I think that was the way she said it. And I said, "None of the above," when I came to realize what she had said. So the answer is somewhere between zero and ten times. I would say between one and ten times is probably more accurate. I can't remember whether I had meetings with ministers and staff preceding the decision or after the decision.
C. Clark: The minister is right: people may not be interested in how many times he met about Burns Bog specifically. But what people are interested in is what exactly this minister does and how he affects the decision-making process of this government. That is a relevant question for people. He's been appointed to this government with a job that no one really understands -- how it works. He's never really explained to anyone how he affects the decisions of other departments. What I'm trying to determine today is how he does that. Does he go in and order other ministers' staff to take direction from him, if that's contrary to those other ministers' directions? Does he go in and make suggestions to them? I mean, how does it work?
Does he have a bureaucracy attached to this whole process? Is it something he makes up on the fly, if he just happens to feel like it? Does he just wake up in the morning with an idea, place a phone call and put in an order to the Minister of Small Business and Tourism? Is that how this whole government works? Is it just sort of on the fly and the on back of an envelope, at the whim of the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, if he happens to be in cell phone range? That's what we're trying to determine here.
What I'm trying to do is use a couple of real-life examples, where there was some controversy in the government, to determine what process the government went through when it was trying to figure it out. The minister may not think that that's important, but I do. It's important to understand how this government makes its decisions and how it affects public policy.
That's what I'm trying to get at with respect to Burns Bog and to fish farming -- two very controversial decisions. So can the minister tell us, at least -- he must be able to remember -- if he intervened before the decision to retract the original decision was made? Did he intervene with the bureaucracy and with the minister to change that decision?
[1100]
[ Page 12874 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I'll happily assist the member in trying to deal with those issues. First of all, there are no orders. We function on a very collegial level as a cabinet and as a caucus. We don't have the same kind of range of ideological shifts or views -- rifts, I should put it, of course -- evident on the other side of the floor, where you've got Reform members and real Liberals and past Liberals. You know, they're all over the map. They're sort of united by only one thing -- that's a thirst for power. That's all they understand. And their goal of achieving it is just through negativity, negativity, negativity -- as opposed to this side of the House, where we have a plan. All of the decisions of government are made in the context of our overview plan. I guess the hon. members don't seem to understand the plan.
We have an economic strategy for the province of British Columbia. So the decisions that we make are not made on the fly but are made in the context of this plan. For example, part of our economic plan is to make sure that we bring forward a regime of targeted tax cuts in certain sectors of the economy, to ensure that those sectors grow and prosper. Part of my work is involved in developing that plan and working with ministers to make sure that we carry out that plan.
The plan, in that context, is working very, very well. We have reduced small business tax rates to the lowest level in western Canada. And that's something that we worked on collegially as a government. Myself, the Minister of Small Business, the Minister of Finance and others within our government, in discussions with the Premier, came to the conclusion that that ought to be an important attribute of our plan. So we did it, and it's working. Small businesses next year, because of a lower tax burden, will be more prosperous than they were this year. That's an important part of the plan. I would hope that the hon. member opposite would stand up and say congratulations to the government for having injected that element into their plan.
We have a plan that says we're going to come forward with a regime of targeted tax cuts for the film industry. We've implemented that, and there's been a remarkable level of success in terms of growth in the film industry here in British Columbia, notwithstanding the efforts of California to the contrary. We've had, I think, $808 million worth of production last year as a result of that tax credit. That's part of the plan. We have discussions about how we can work within the context of that plan in a collegial way to attract more film activity to British Columbia. I would hope that the hon. member would stand up in this House and say: "Good on the government for having had the vision to develop that tax credit."
We saw that there were problems in forestry, and we recognized that we had to respond to the concerns of the forest industry. So we had a discussion amongst ourselves in which I also played a role. The member, I'm sure, has my daytimer there, and she can see that we had meetings with certain people in the forest industry. We brought forward a plan to reduce stumpage rates in British Columbia, streamline provisions in the Forest Practices Code and make changes in terms of access to wood for the value-added sector -- and that plan is working. We're seeing mills reopening, people going back to work and industry returning back to a regime of profitability. So any discussions that we have are in the context of that plan.
I want the hon. member to be disabused of the view that these things are sort of made up on the fly. There's a plan, of course, which -- if she thought about it -- she would stand up and give the government credit for. In addition to that, there are some issues that require day-to-day management, and we'll get involved in dealing with those issues. We don't need flanks of staff to do that. There are strategic considerations that are made on a day-to-day basis.
Let me give the hon. member an example that perhaps she can relate to. There's no doubt in my mind that every day -- it's got to happen over there in the opposition -- the members of the opposition get together as a group in a collegial fashion and decide among themselves what questions they're going to pose in question period. I know, of course, that the hon. member's never asked me one that deals with my portfolio. I think she only
[1105]
C. Clark: That's because we're still trying to figure out what you do.Hon. M. Sihota: Well, it's a difficult exercise, and I'm hoping to help out the hon. member in that regard.
They get together, and they decide, you know: "We'll ask this minister this question." Those things happen on a day-to-day basis, so we will also get involved in issues from time to time, on a day-to-day basis, which have salient and strategic implications for government. Burns Bog is one of those issues. It has broad implications for government, and from time to time we'll get together and make sure that we're headed in the right direction -- in the right direction I've already laid out. So it's all in the context of the government's plan.
The plan is working very well. The economy is starting to recover in British Columbia. The strategy we've laid out is working well. I know the members opposite are upset about that, because every time the economy gets better, they get worried because it's not in their political interests that that be the case. Well, that's fair enough. They've chosen their path of negativity. On this side of the House, part of our plan also has attributes that relate to health care and education.
The member goes for my daytimer; she seems to be sort of obsessed by it. She'll see that we also have meetings on health care and education to make sure that the plan that the government has laid out -- in terms of additional expenditures and the way in which we proceed on health care and education -- is working and flowing as per cabinet's instructions. There's no ordering going on. We just make sure that the game plan, when we go into our huddle, is executed in the way that we had planned. If there are some adjustments that we've got to make while things are being implemented, then we'll assist in doing that. Granted, it's a unique role in government, but it's a very enjoyable one.
The Chair: The Chair would just like to suggest that we've had a far-ranging discussion in regard to the subjects so far. Perhaps, at some point, we should narrow into the estimates before us.
C. Clark: Hon. Chair, I want to boil down what the minister has just said. I know you're frustrated with some of the long answers that have gone on, so I'll try and boil this down, and maybe that will give you some help.
What I think the minister just said was that the government has a plan. They come up with a plan; then, when the
[ Page 12875 ]
plan doesn't work, they just change it. I think that's what the minister just suggested to us. Now, maybe the plan that the Premier has is to return B.C. to the good old days -- right? -- when this was a vast uninhabited wilderness, because British Columbians are leaving this province at record rates, going to other places because they're the only places they can find work. That's what is happening. That's not much of a plan, as far as I'm concerned. That's not much of a plan that's going to provide for people's future in British Columbia, as far as I'm concerned.
The minister did talk about his role in other committees as well. I'm interested to know: do those
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, the member
The economy is going
The committees are all active.
C. Clark: Get in the way of the stampede! It's 18 percent in the polls. That's a heck of a stampede -- 18 percent of British Columbians rushing over to support this government's economic plan for British Columbia. Boy, you better get out of the way of that one. You'll end up crushed and flattened by that big standing in the polls, I'll tell you.
Actually, here's a fairly simple question for the minister, then. When this so-called economic committee was appointed, the chairperson said that it's the opportunity for the business community to literally have one-stop shopping with the decision-makers of government. Can the minister tell us how many members of the business community have exercised their opportunity for one-stop shopping? How many of them have made a presentation to the committee?
Hon. M. Sihota: There couldn't be anything worse than being in opposition two years before an election and being high in the polls. We saw this phenomenon before, and we saw what happened last election campaign. I'd venture to say that the members opposite may well find themselves sitting in opposition after the next election campaign.
Now, with regards to the question: dozens.
[1110]
C. Clark: Yeah, two years away from the next election, huh? That's interesting to note. I guess that what happened last timeDozens of the business community have made presentations to the economic committee. Could the minister tell us, then: is this a normal part of the committee's functioning? Is this something that business leaders are aware of? Is there sort of a 15-minute part of the economic committee's formal functioning that's dedicated to hearing from business leaders, labour leaders and community leaders who have an interest in the way the economy is running? Or is this just something that works by fiat of the committee?
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if I was a member opposite, I would worry about their political problems and not worry about the challenges of government administration. Everywhere I go, everywhere I travel across British Columbia, people stop me in airports, on street corners and in bank lineups, and they always tell me one thing. They don't know why, but they know that they don't like the Leader of the Opposition. If I were the member opposite, I'd worry about that and the lack of skills on that side in terms of her leader. In regard to the question
In response to the question, what we do is
C. Clark: Give me a break. Listening to this minister talk about leadership and leadership skills would be a joke if it wasn't so serious and if we weren't depending on this crew to run British Columbia's economy: a Premier who's had his home searched by the RCMP; a government that has had to retroactively change laws, because it can't live within them; and a minister who's been disgraced twice and kicked out of cabinet. This is the man counselling us on leadership. He has the gall to stand up and suggest that other people in this House lack leadership skills. At 18 percent in the polls and being rejected by record numbers of British Columbians -- a historic number since polling began in British Columbia
According to this minister, we're not going to be looking at an election until this government absolutely has to pull the
[ Page 12876 ]
plug because the law says that they have to. And that's one law that this government can't retroactively change. So rather than having the guts to go out and say, "We recognize that the public doesn't want us anymore; we recognize that the public knows that we've failed them, that they don't believe that we're competent or trustworthy, that we don't deserve to have this job anymore
[1115]
They're going to go for five years -- two more years for British Columbians without a hint of relief from the taxes and the economic devastation that this government has wrought in people's lives -- people who aren't working today because of this government's economic policies. They're going to hang on until the bitter end, so that all the MLAs can keep seeing a paycheque, and so that their patronage appointees can keep their noses in the trough until the last minute. They're going to wait to call an election. In the meantime, this minister will stand here and counsel the opposition on how to show leadership. Well, thank you very much, but I don't think anybody in British Columbia is going to take a lesson in leadership from this government -- particularly not from this minister.Anyway -- having said that and having corrected the minister's comments -- I want to ask the minister specifically about this committee. He's indicated that they meet with these decision-makers and that there is a standing invitation for business people and community and union leaders to come in and talk to the government about what direction they'd like them to take. But he said -- or he seems to have indicated -- that there isn't any staff support for that process. Now, if there is any staff support, could he tell us what it is and how many people support this A team?
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, you know, the hon. member talks about guts and being scared. Let me tell the member something. In the last month and a half, on several occasions, members on this side of the House have challenged members opposite to engage in public debates around public policy issues. We challenged the members opposite to debate us at the University of Victoria on post-secondary education. We challenged them to do that so that the public could see clearly what the choices are between us on this side of the House, who believe that accessibility ought to be enhanced, that we ought to continue the tuition freeze, that children ought to have access to post-secondary education and that parents ought to be able to live that dream in making sure that their children do better in life than they did
We challenged the members opposite to lay out what they would do in terms of education. And you know what? In a moment of bravado, the member opposite said publicly on radio: "Sure, we'll meet the Minister for the Public Service and his colleague the Minister of Advanced Education anytime, anywhere." So we issued a letter in response. Talk about guts and being scared. All of a sudden the opposition's guts vanished. They got scared, and they said: "We don't want to have a debate with the members opposite."
We turned around to the members opposite, and we said: "Let's have a debate about health care. Let's go out there on the streets and have a debate about health care policy." The Leader of the Opposition, during the last election campaign, stood up and said: "six billion dollars." In other words, a $2 billion cut for health care would be enough. We said: "You know, maybe it's time we had a debate about health care publicly, so British Columbians could know what the choices are come the next election." Do you know what the members opposite said? Oh, you talk about guts. All of a sudden the guts vanished. They got scared. They didn't take up the government on its request for a debate.
We said to the members opposite: "Fine. We've tabled our budget that is having an effect in terms of turning around the economy in British Columbia." All members on both sides of the House know the economy's starting to turn around. All members on both sides of the House know that those strategic tax cuts -- be it in film, be it in high-tech, be it in forestry, be it for small business, be it for individuals, all of those things -- are having a positive impact in terms of turning around this economy.
We said to them: "Well, here's our budget. Where's yours? Table yours." The Finance critic of the members opposite stands up
Let me just give one example of that, being mindful of what you had to say earlier on. For two years the B.C. Teachers Federation has been saying to the Liberal Party of British Columbia: "What is your policy on education?" For two years they've been asking. You would think that sometime during those 24 months the members could muster up just one piece of paper that says: "This is what we would do on education." But have we seen a policy paper on education from the members opposite? No, not one piece of paper. The BCTF -- and, more importantly, the public at large -- doesn't know where the members opposite
[1120]
Well, I'll tell you why they're not doing it. Because they don't have a policy. It strikes fear in my heart to think that we've got an opposition that's so ill-equipped that it doesn't even know where it wants to go on these policy issues. It is gutless; it is scared. And yes, in part that's a reflection of the kind of leadership that you've got over there -- a leader who most people tell me, when I make my way around the streets of British ColumbiaNow, the answer to the question is that we have some staff that are seconded from the secretariat who come and provide us work, and some staff from the Finance and Employment and Investment ministries that vet each one of the invitations.
The Chair: The Chair would like to remind members that we're dealing with the estimates of the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, and as interesting as the discussion this morning has been, we are far beyond that specific discussion.
C. Clark: Well, I want to pursue how the minister comes up with these economic plans through this economic A team that the Premier has appointed.
When we talk about guts from the government, let's talk about having the guts to tell the truth; having the guts to tell
[ Page 12877 ]
the truth about what's happening with people's finances, with people's taxes; having the guts to tell people what's happening with the budget; having the guts to tell the truth when you put a budget out to British Columbians and making sure that it's correct; having the guts to tell them where their tax money is going; having the guts to tell them that you haven't balanced the budget once, you haven't balanced the budget twice; having the guts to be truthful, to be straight with people, to tell them where you're spending their money. That's what guts are. Guts are all about being honest with people, with coming clean, with saying where you stand.You can't go out and tell British Columbians that you balanced their budget. You can't run in an election and tell them that they should vote for you because you've balanced the budget twice -- when you haven't and when you know you haven't. When you go out there knowing that what you're saying is not true -- that is gutless. That is the most gutless, cowardly way to win an election I can imagine: to go out there and deliberately mislead people about what's happening with their tax dollars, just to gain power.
It's cowardly, it's gutless, and it's wrong, and this government still hasn't come clean about that. They still hide their budget numbers. They're still moving debt off the books so that the public can't see it. They are still refusing to come clean about the budget that belongs to British Columbians. Until they do that, how can anybody make any predictions about where this government stands financially?
I bet that even members of the government don't know. Now, I'm sure that doesn't keep them awake at nights, because frankly, I don't think they care. I don't think, quite frankly, members of the government care where they're spending taxpayers' dollars, whether they're spending more of theirs, whether the debt's going up or whether it's sustainable. I don't think they care whether they're charting a course for British Columbia that's going to mean huge taxes and huge unemployment rates long into the future, for future generations.
Maybe it's not a big deal for members of the cabinet to know where they stand on the budget issues. But I'll tell you, when I walk around in my constituency and talk to people, they do care. They want to know where their money's being spent.
[1125]
If this government had the guts to be honest with people, that would be a good place to start. But if the government doesn't have the guts to be honest, then just call an election. Have the courage to face the electorate, and let them issue a verdict about your performance. That's the way to show real leadership: go to the people, let them issue their verdict and see where the government stands after that. If the minister is so confident that the course that they've charted is so wise and so acceptable, then have the guts to call an election. That's the appropriate place for a debate; that's where it should happen. Goodness knows, British Columbians are desperate for that to happen.
The minister says that he has some small staff support for the A team -- and that's on secondment for his group. Now, do they report to the Minister Responsible for the Public Service? Do they report to the chairman of the committee, or do they
The Chair: Just before I recognize the minister, I want to caution members in regard to their use of language in the chamber. We desire parliamentary language and relevancy in debate.
Hon. M. Sihota: Why doesn't the member opposite go out there and tell the truth to British Columbians? Why doesn't she walk out there and tell them that platform No. 1 for the Liberal Party of British Columbia is to cut the capital corporation tax and reduce taxes for their friends on Howe Street -- the richest people in British Columbia? That's where they stand, but they run and duck-and-cover on that issue.
The hon. member wants to talk about the truth. Why doesn't the hon. member stand up in this House and congratulate this government for having the lowest small business tax rate in the country? Why doesn't she stand up and say: "Look, that's good economic initiatives on the part of this administration"? She wants to talk about the truth. Why doesn't she stand up here and congratulate the government for the fact that this year there are 58,000 new jobs created in British Columbia over last year? Why doesn't she stand up here and admit to the fact that we have the second-lowest level of taxes in Canada? Why doesn't she stand up here and say: "You know, British Columbia ought to be congratulated for having one of the lowest debt-per-capita ratios anywhere in Canada"? Why doesn't she stand up and say: "Look, it's about 22 percent or 23 percent in British Columbia, and my friends in the Liberal Party in Ottawa have about a 70 percent rate in terms of that ratio"? Why doesn't she stand up and say: "Look, the Leader of the Opposition would cut the size of the public service, would cut health care and would cut education"? Why doesn't she stand up and say: "Look, the bottom line of our budget" -- of their budget -- "is that there would be $3.6 billion worth of cuts and misery to working families in British Columbia"?
She won't do that. She won't do that; she wants to hide behind the veneer of negativity, innuendo and personal attack. Those are the attributes of the opposition. Indeed, I'll tell the members opposite that when I go onto the streets in my riding, people tell me that they're tired of the negativity of the opposition -- the constant, constant negativity of the opposition -- and they know that the only reason the opposition does that is because they do not have any positive policies of their own.
Staff are not seconded from other ministries; staff from other ministries provide support to the committee structure that we have. I know that the member opposite has not had the privilege of serving in government, so I want to take a minute to explain this to her. Traditionally, within government, cabinet strikes a series of committees. It's not typical for a minister to have a subset of staff working for him or her to support those committees. Rather, the complement of staff that support a committee come from the ministers that are on that committee. If you have a committee, for example, that deals with economic and environmental issues, that committee will get support from staff -- the deputy ministers, the ADMs, the policy folks -- that come from those different ministries. They'll provide input to ministers so that there is an informed debate. No one's seconded; it's not seconding in that sense. They provide support to the ministries out of their direct line. That's how it works.
How many staff? It's hard to say. It varies from committee to committee. If the member's question deals with the eco-
[ Page 12878 ]
nomic council, the economic council -- I'm sort of trying to eyeball the room -- has, I would say, about a dozen support staff. They range from the
[1130]
D. Jarvis: I hate to interrupt this pre-election debate, but I'd like permission to make an introduction.Leave granted.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce to the members here some people from a school in my constituency: Blueridge Elementary School. There are 53 students; their teacher, Mrs. Dale; and 12 parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
C. Clark: The minister touched on job creation and cuts to the public service. Maybe we should deal with the discussion of job creation first. StatsCan indicates that yes, there has been some job creation in British Columbia, but the vast majority -- 60 percent of it -- has been in the public sector; about 40 percent of it has been in the self-employment sector. Less than 1 percent, or about 1 percent, has been in the private sector. Does the minister think that's sustainable?
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I always take umbrage at that kind of approach. Let me explain why to the member. I'm also trying to get my fingers on some statistics that relate to the growth of the public sector. I think I've got them here.
Hon. Speaker, the size of the public service as of April 1997, including regular and auxiliary employees, was 38,335. In April 1998 it was 38,314; in April 1999 it stood at 38,235. So that's the growth variable. If you want to put it in full-time equivalents, which is perhaps a better way to look at it, the full-time equivalents have dropped from 40,673 in 1997 to 33,495 in 1999. So those are the numbers in terms of growth of the public service.
Like I said at the outset, I take some umbrage at those kinds of descriptions, for this reason: are we as a society to value less the work that a teacher or a nurse does than someone who works as a millwright in a mill or as an architect in an architectural firm? Surely we value the work that is done by people within the public service and the public sector. For the member to raise those kinds of distinctions, which I hear members opposite raise from time to time, in my view connotes a view of devaluation of the kind of work that's done by the public sector. In my mind, there's nothing wrong with growth of employees to provide those kinds of much-needed professional services -- let's say teaching or nursing. Indeed, as a government, we made a very conscious decision to hire a thousand new nurses over, I think, a three-year time period, and about the same number of teachers. So there is growth in the public sector in that regard, and I think that's the kind of growth that provides the kinds of services that British Columbians require.
There are other examples; I don't want to belabour the point. I think the member gets my point. At the same time, part of those StatsCan results will quantify public sector construction projects as just that -- public sector employment -- when in essence much of that work is done by the private sector. So when we're building the Vancouver Island Highway or building new schools or building new hospitals, inasmuch as those are public expenditure, the jobs are essentially created for private sector companies, funded by public sector expenditures.
If the member wants to get into a debate about whether or not that's an appropriate classification or whether, more importantly, it's appropriate for government to incur that kind of debt to create that kind of employment, I'm happy to get into that debate. I note that often the members opposite criticize some of the work we do on B.C. Ferries, and I know that if she were to walk out to my riding, people understand the value of those expenditures in terms of shipbuilding and the employment that generates. So you have to take a look at it from that point of view.
[1135]
In addition to that, we should know that there are increases in employment within the private sector that the hon. member should not overlook. Whether self-employed or not, we are seeing significant growth in the tourism, high-tech and film industries. No doubt about the fact that on the private sector side, we're seeing significant growth in that regard. Similarly, we're seeing it in the energy sector, in natural gas and oil. We've seen not only production increased at a fairly good clip between 1997 and 1999, but we've also seen fairly significant employment growth in that regard.I think the one area of the economy that concerns all members of the House is growth and employment on the private sector side in terms of forestry. Clearly, in that regard, I think we all recognize that if the economy is to rebound in a more buoyant way, there has to be far greater growth than that. Once again -- and I don't have the statistics here in front of me -- the indications this year are that we should start to see a recovery in that regard. Jobs are jobs, whether in the public sector or the private sector. I don't get as hung up about that as the member opposite does and certainly make no apologies for a government making expenditures in areas like health and education and incurring debt to generate employment opportunities for British Columbians.
C. Clark: Well, the minister should make a differentiation between the two, because the way it works is this -- and I'll explain it for the minister, because he's on the A team and he can maybe take this back to some of his colleagues who are working on fixing the economy. Every tax dollar that's produced for government comes from the private sector. The private sector produces money; that gets taxed by government. We call it government revenue. And then that government revenue comes out to pay for public services. So it comes out to pay for nurses and teachers and everybody who works in the public sector. That's the agreement we make: every dollar that comes from the private sector and goes to government, goes out to the public sector. That's the way the system works.
If you don't have any money coming out of the private sector anymore, and you're growing the amount of money that you're spending in the public sector, you end up with an imbalance. That's the problem. That's why you can't say: "A job is a job is a job." You can't say that when government is paying for someone, it's equal and the same kind of job as a job in the private sector. It doesn't work that way. You have to have the private sector growing concurrently with the public sector. Otherwise you don't have the revenue coming through to be able to sustain the growth in costs for the public sector.
I'm not arguing that we don't need more nurses in British Columbia. But what I am arguing is that the government is
[ Page 12879 ]
pursuing an unsustainable course. If they are going to grow the public sector -- as they clearly have shown they want to do; they want to drastically increase government spending -- then they are going to have to find a way to increase revenue from the private sector. And the only way to do that is to get it growing again -- instead of beating it up, instead of killing all of those small businesses, instead of driving the forest industry into the ground -- so that you can create some revenue for government to sustain the public sector jobs. That's the way the system works. And the way it's working now is unsustainable. The way the government is killing the private sector, killing revenue coming into government means that in the long run we will no longer be able to sustain those very necessary public services in health care and education.But my question, though, for the minister, which I still haven't gotten a full answer to, is this: we have seen a substantial growth in the public sector, according to Statistics Canada. The minister has told us that the number of public servants that work directly for government has remained more or less static over the last few years. So where exactly then has that public service growth occurred, as it's defined by Statistics Canada?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member sort of did a quick economic analysis in terms of where the money comes from, where the money goes. She started off by saying that the money comes from the private sector and goes to fund public sector initiatives. I'm sure the hon. member won't disagree with this: public sector employees also pay taxes, and revenue also comes in from the public sector. It's not just exclusive to the private sector. And indeed, all governments -- including ours -- have to recognize that there needs to be growth in both the private sector and the public sector. The challenge of public administration is to make sure that there is sufficient revenue coming in from both those sectors, and others, to meet government's needs.
[1140]
The member gives sort of a general indication of what she thinks is wrong with the economy in terms of the absence of private sector growth. I would argue that that is an argument of political convenience, because the facts are that this year we're starting to see a change in terms of private sector inputs into our economy.For example, the hon. member knows that a big part of our economy is what happens in the forest sector. And yes, we provided some competitive remedies to that sector through reduced stumpage fees, through streamlining the Forest Practices Code, through changes to encourage value-added production. And we are noting this year -- and I'm sure the hon. member won't disagree with this -- that profitability is returning to that sector. Interfor is reporting a profit after a $14 million loss last year. TimberWest is reporting an 86 percent increase in its profits; they're up to $24.5 million this year. MacMillan Bloedel is pointing to a doubling of its profits, up to $33 million this year.
At the same time, exports are up. And we're talking about private sector-generated activity. Exports are up 7 percent in January and February this year, compared to the same period last year. Forestry exports
Now on to the port of Vancouver. Shipments are also up by 44 percent this year. We are poised to overtake Montreal as the number one port in Canada. In fact, with the arrival of Zim, an international line, to the port of Vancouver, starting this past week -- May 24
At the same time, all members of the House should know that tourism is showing, again, a trend this year to be well above last year's record-setting year -- as has film. We're seeing that on the high-tech side there's more investment in British Columbia than in any other jurisdiction in Canada, in terms of new investment on high-tech. I think part of that is due to the fact that we're trying to attract more investment in high-tech, setting up an appropriate investment climate to get it here. There are different elements to that, which we're happy to speak about. And there's more work to be done, which I'm also prepared to speak about.
The hon. member should take comfort in the fact that all of these indicators that I've just spoken about are positive and that the private sector inputs into the public purse are increasing. Now, I know she doesn't want to admit that. I know that she'll stand up and try to sort of continue on this generic path of negativity that we hear from members opposite. But the facts don't support that, and British Columbians know that the economy's starting to turn around. The opposition will be sort of left as time goes on, screaming about the sky falling in.
Just on the question of inputs and outputs, the other point on the outputs is this: on the output side we do value the public service. We don't think that the public service is something that gets in the way. It's a quote I often hear from the Leader of the Opposition, that somehow the public service is something that just gets in the way. Well, that's not the case. We do take the view that those jobs in nursing or health care or otherwise are jobs that are just as important, in my view, as jobs in the private sector. I hear the member very clearly saying that's not her view. Well, she's entitled to it, and I guess we'll have some opportunity to speak about that as time goes on.
[1145]
As for her question, she should ask Statistics Canada. They come up with those numbers. Those aren't B.C. numbers that we produce out of our government.
C. Clark: The minister misunderstands if he thinks that I don't think that health care and education are important
[ Page 12880 ]
fact that this government, through its negligent management of our economy -- its total incompetence -- is endangering our ability to pay for health care and education.This government's course of shutting down the private sector, of decreasing the amount of revenues that government takes in year after year -- because the private sector is no longer functioning normally, no longer functioning at the level that it should be -- means that we won't have any money to pay for health care and education. It's an unsustainable course.
What I am concerned about is that this government is endangering those very vital services. The government has to change its course, has to kick-start the economy, has to get the private sector working again. That is the only way we will be able to ensure we have world-quality education standards and world-quality access to public health care. That's the only way we're going to do it. The fact that this government doesn't understand the connection between those two things is frightening. It's not a question of valuing one less than the other. In fact, it's a question of valuing those public services so much that we have to change this government's economic policies in order to protect them. That's what we're talking about.
You know, the minister stands in the House and talks about how well the forest industry is doing and tells people in this chamber that there are all these job gains, while at the same time the Forests minister is going to Ottawa begging for money and telling a completely different story, predicting secretly in documents that he submits to them privately but won't share with the public that we're down 11,000 jobs -- which is a conservative measure by any standard -- and we've got 18,000 more jobs to lose in the forest industry. So this minister will tell one story at home, in this chamber, and the other minister will secretly go begging to Ottawa for money for a once-proud forest industry with a completely different story about how well the economy is doing. I'm not going to
Now, the minister has talked about the growth in the public sector, but he hasn't told us where it's happening. He's said that he values these employees. He's said that the number of employees that work directly for government has stayed static. What I'm asking the minister to explain is where the growth has happened in the public sector. We've seen that Statistics Canada has come out with several reports that have said that there has been substantial growth in the public sector, and that that's where the vast majority of the job growth in British Columbia has occurred. Where exactly have those jobs been created?
Hon. M. Sihota: Well, it's a fascinating debate, hon. Chair. If you go back to what the hon. member has now said in response to my comments, it really does highlight the differences of opinion between this side of the House and that side of the House. The member opposite takes the view that the size of the public sector should increase only commensurate with the increases in revenue from the private sector. And if there's a shortfall in revenue, then the Liberals opposite would cut health care and education -- because that's two-thirds of your budget -- to hit the balance that they're seeking. That's what she's saying.
She would take the same approach that her friends in Alberta have taken, her friends in Ontario have taken, her friends in New Brunswick have taken and her friends right across this country and in most jurisdictions have taken. You know what's happened, hon. Chair? They have now found themselves having to backfill health care and education needs for their citizens. Of course, they're all doing it on the eve of elections. But they're backfilling the funding for those, knowing that they have gone too far in making cuts.
[1150]
We're not prepared to make cuts to health care and education in order to deal with those input issues that the member raised. We're not prepared to make savage cuts to our health care and education. We have a better plan, and the plan is pretty straightforward. We'll continue to make those investments in health care and education to protect the integrity of those services. Those services are rated among the best in the country. We are, after all, Canada's education province. When Maclean's magazine looked last year at the health care systems across the country, they rated British Columbia's as number one in Canada -- not a perfect health care system, but the best in Canada. Where other jurisdictions had savaged their health care plans and their health care budgets, we had protected the health care services that are provided to British Columbians.Now, we could have chosen the path which the member opposite is arguing. We could have made radical cuts to health care and education. We chose very consciously not to do that. At the same time, we said: "Look, there is a need to stimulate economic activity in the province of British Columbia." No doubt for a lot of reasons, the revenue that's flowing in to the Crown from the private sector has decreased. Use forestry as an example. It's due, yes, in part to domestic policy, so we made changes in stumpage rates and the Forest Practices Code; yes, in part to the provisions of the softwood lumber agreement; and yes, in part to the flu in Asia. So we've tried within our jurisdiction to make the appropriate changes, and we've got them right. We're seeing, for example, that Doman is going back and hiring workers, reopening facilities here on Vancouver Island. We're seeing Louisiana-Pacific making new investments in British Columbia -- private sector investments -- to create additional opportunities in this province. I can go on in terms of others on the value-added side. So we made a very conscious decision to try to generate more revenue.
We also said: "Look, strategically there are other areas of our economy where we think we can draw in more revenue, more economic activity and enhance on the private sector side." I don't need to repeat what I said earlier on, but under the guidance of the Minister of Small Business, we made two significant changes, I would argue.
One was a reduction in the small business tax rate, so it's more competitive than any other jurisdiction in western Canada -- the lowest tax rate. I never hear the members opposite criticize that; I never hear them praise it. But they should stand up and say: "Look, on that point the government did a hell of a job in terms of getting the rates down to the lowest in Canada" -- with a commitment that we'll keep them there.
In addition to that, we brought forward a tax credit which made us more competitive in the film industry with both Ontario and California. What's happening now? California's complaining about the amount of work that's coming here to British Columbia.
We took a look at what Alberta's doing on the oil and gas royalty side of it. We said: "Well, look. Rather than some of
[ Page 12881 ]
these broad tax cuts to the hon. member's friends on Howe Street, who contribute to their campaigns, what we're going to do is make targeted tax cuts." In oil and gas, we brought forward a reduction on the royalty side -- a 40 percent reduction in terms of that side of it. Exploration in British Columbia went up 40 percent, and it dropped 40 percent in Alberta.
I can go on. But what we're doing as a government is that we've got a four-year plan that sees us
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota:
The member laughs. But you know, the member knows that the choice is very clear. She knows deep down inside that it's evident now what the choice is. We could have that kind of oscillation in terms of policy on the social side that we've seen in Ontario and Alberta -- have massive cuts and an effort to backfill. Or we can have consistency in terms of quality services, which is what you've got here in British Columbia, and leadership in areas like hiring new nurses, new teachers and tuition freezes -- and at the same time, turning around the economic performance of the bottom line here in B.C. That's the difference between our plan and their plan.
I can give the hon. member a total account of the growth in the direct public sector here in British Columbia in terms of both the ups and downs, in terms of both management, the bargaining unit and the excluded provisions. What I'll do is table the document with the member opposite, so she can have the opportunity to study it over the lunch hour. I look forward to her questions, if there are any left, after question period.
With that said, I move that
D. Symons: Could you table our plan too, please?
Hon. M. Sihota: Pardon me?
D. Symons: Would you table our plan too?
Hon. M. Sihota: You don't have a plan; that's the problem. You don't have a plan. You missed that speech, hon. member.
The Chair: Through the Chair, members.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, the member opposite wants us to table their plan. If they had a plan, I'm sure they'd table it. I challenge the member opposite to table his education policy.
Hon. M. Sihota: So, with that said, and the member obviously now having something to think about over lunch, I move that the committee rise, report substantial progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress and resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
[1155]
The Speaker: I think there's a report to be handed in. I recognize the member for North Island.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have the privilege of tabling a document.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
The committee met at 10:12 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRIES
(continued)
M. de Jong: I understand that sometimes ministers wish to make some introductory remarks. If that is not the case, I'm happy to launch away.
We've had the debate around the Nisga'a treaty, so that's been helpful to the extent that we have, I think, a better idea of what the government believes is properly discussed during those debates or what the government believes its constraints are when we get to that stage of the ratification process. So I think I'm going to be guided somewhat during these discussions by that model of debate that occurred at the ratification stage. If I can, I'll begin today to ask just a couple of general questions of the minister about the manner in which the province settles upon the mandate it takes to the table with respect to any number of issues. I'm going to ask the general questions first, and then maybe we can get more specific.
I am curious to know how it is that a matter is on the table or off the table. Those would be the two extreme positions, and there are obviously subtle nuances that occur on a daily basis at the table; but we have seen over the course of the past
[ Page 12882 ]
number of weeks and months where issues are said to be available for discussion and where issues aren't. Although we have had a discussion in the past with the minister's predecessor -- and with that minister's predecessor -- about how mandates are developed within the ministry and can trace some of that through the various organizational charts, I'm not sure I understand how it is that the province decides whether or not it is prepared to discuss a matter. Maybe that's as good a place as any to start in these estimates discussions.
[1015]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think that there are some fairly broad sort of guiding principles that the province takes to these discussions. Maybe I can just go through some of them. The first guiding principle is that private property is not on the table, and that's a consideration. The second has to do with the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it's our view that all negotiations have to fall within the context of the Canadian constitution and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must apply. So as two guiding general principles, those are certainly there.The third issue is that there has to be a recognition of fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests and that we have to give assurances to third parties that that is going to be honoured. The fourth is that jurisdictional responsibilities that lie between first nations, local governments, federal government and provincial government are clearly defined, so that there's no confusion or complexity with respect to those jurisdictions -- that those lines are very clearly defined.
The provincewide standards
On the federal government's primary constitutional and financial responsibility for treaties being maintained, we take a very strong position with respect to the historical fiduciary obligation of the federal government, and we don't wish to see that eroded.
The agreement, obviously, has to fall within what we can afford to pay, so that when we get to tables, we talk about land-cash quantums and we look at the relationship that we have, in our memorandum of understanding, with the federal government in terms of that payment. But the province continues to maintain the parks and protected areas for the use and benefit of all British Columbians. So we want language on access that is not going to be constrictive or in some way exclusive in its definition -- that all terms and conditions of provincial leases and licences are met. That's an understanding that we go to the table with -- that where existing licences and leases occur, the terms and conditions of those leases are not disrupted. That aboriginal people will pay tax is a condition of negotiation. And the treaty process
Clearly, at each table things will change, depending on what the priorities of the first nation are or what issues the federal government may think need to be dealt with. So any party -- any of the three parties -- can bring to the table an attempt to negotiate other issues and other conditions, and frequently they do. But in order to get ratification, obviously it requires agreement of all three parties. Those are our guiding principles.
M. de Jong: All right. Maybe the question, then, to help me understand this is: from the province's point of view, how does something become a guiding principle? Is it a fixed
For example, the minister has fairly pointed out the government's position that the Charter of Rights must apply. Presumably a first nations group could come to the negotiating table and try to negotiate that, but the province is going to say that's a non-starter: "Our guiding principles are such that you can talk about that all you want, but we are not budging off that point." How does something acquire that degree of certainty, from the province's point of view, as a guiding principle?
[1020]
Hon. G. Wilson: When the Treaty Commission was established, along with that came advisory groups that were regional in base, were technical. We had the third-party-interest advisory groups. The province needed to broadly consult with British Columbians with respect to what would be an acceptable mandate for us to take to the table as the government, mandated by the public. Over the course of the Treaty Commission, which has evolved over a number of years, those levels of consultation have increased, not diminished.Where Nisga'a was somewhat different is that Nisga'a, of course -- as the member well knows -- was negotiated outside of the Treaty Commission process. The kind of clear lines of consultation, especially in the early stages of that negotiation, were not there. There was much bilateral negotiation initially -- the federal government and the Nisga'a. The province came in on the latter part of that negotiation. So there was a reasonably steep learning curve taken by all parties at the table as to how this modern treaty-making was going to take place.
We now have a very broad base of consultation both within local government and industry and also through special interest groups, who want to have their say at the table as to what those general lines would be. I think the province and the people of British Columbia have made it very clear that the guiding principles that are adopted now as a mandate by the provincial Crown are a mandate that the people of the province want to see adhered to.
With respect to matters of the constitution, the member would know that where some first nations don't like the fact that we are talking about adherence to the Canadian constitution and the Charter of Rights applying -- and it's true that some of them don't agree to that -- they don't enter the treaty negotiation process. Some of them are not in the process. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has taken a different perspective with respect to how they come at that issue. That's challenging, because we are clearly trying to work with those first
[ Page 12883 ]
nations in order to come up with a modern accommodation of interests and concerns, for them as much as for anybody else. But where there is a strong philosophical difference, they just don't engage. I think that's been the history of these negotiations.
M. de Jong: Well, I think that's helpful, and that alternative process is something that I'd like to spend a little bit of time on later. I know that there are ongoing discussions about how that will evolve and how it might function, and I think it's important. I think it's also important that we
I'm curious, though, to explore a little further. As a means of looking ahead, though -- as a British Columbian who wants to anticipate what is going to take place at a negotiating table and what his government is going to take as a position to the negotiating table -- can we look at an agreement like Nisga'a, for example, insofar as certain jurisdictions within the aboriginal self-government provisions of that treaty have been assigned to the Nisga'a and assigned paramount authority and others haven't? I understand what the minister has said about the province's desire to see provincial standards applied in as many areas as possible. Is that now indicative of a position that the province has taken with respect to the question of paramountcy versus the meet-or-beat provisions? I know I am treading perilously close to becoming embroiled in the whole debate around precedential value of the document. At this point, at least, that's not my intention. I'm trying to better understand how, within the negotiations division and the policy division, those discussions or those debates occur internally within government, before the government is confronted at the table by the other two parties.
[1025]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think it's safe to say that before there's any discussion of it, first nations have to request that they have those provisions. Not all first nations are requesting the level of self-government authority that the Nisga'a have. In the Sechelt model, for example, they didn't ask for the hospital board, the educational board or the school board. They don't need it, because they are in a community in which they access the services for which they already have representation on the regional district and the municipal government. They are very much connected to local government and to the governance of those services.I think that where the province will recognize that there is a legitimate request or demand by first nations to enter into the provision of government services, we would look to see whether or not (a) that provides greater efficiency for the delivery of that service and (b) what the federal government's view is with respect to it. Many of those services are currently funded through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, often through a tribal council, so we'd look to see whether or not tribal council services are already providing that -- therefore is this simply an extension of existing services? And probably (c) we would come back to our own team to look within the general guiding principles of these negotiations to see whether or not we're on a course that's going to deviate from what we believe to be an acceptable mandate provided over the years and through a couple of provincial elections by the public.
M. de Jong: Before I get a little more specific, can the
Hon. G. Wilson: If I understand the member's question correctly, I think it's safe to say that mandate work is an ongoing process. Discussions are evolving and, as they do evolve with the various first nations, will include different issues. We have -- and I've just outlined what they are -- some guiding principles that we're not prepared to vary from. For example, where we say that taxation will be required for first nations and that the exemptions will be phased out, does that mean that we're not going to listen to any other variation on how that phase-out may occur or what kind of combination of payment may be made? The answer to that is that we would probably entertain some discussion around that, provided we end up with the same end result.
Now, the problem is that we've got to deal with the federal government, who equally want to make sure that their priorities are in place. So it is fair to say that mandates vary at the table. Specifically, specific mandates will vary, but I don't want to let the member believe that somehow that variance is going to take us dramatically away from the guiding principles I outlined.
[1030]
M. de Jong: That's helpful. Maybe I can refer the minister to the page I was alluding to in the annual report for '97-98 -- page 11 -- describing some of the work undertaken by the policy and implementation branch of the negotiation support division. There is reference made at the bottom of the page to the development of provincewide treaty mandates and policy to guide negotiators. The notation under the heading "Achievements" is: "Hon. G. Wilson: There are a variety of documents, some that are public and some that are still in the purview of cabinet. We took a number of options to TNAC and to third-party advisory groups for their perusal, review and consultation. Similarly, the UBCM have looked at issues in their subcommittee that deals with first nations treaty issues.
What that refers to are those documents that went out for broad consultation so that people were fully aware of the options that may be in place at various tables. However, the specific mandate that negotiators have at the table will require cabinet approval, and those mandates that are set out have not been generally distributed.
M. de Jong: Then I'm just a bit unclear. The mandates in the areas described here suggest to me, just from a simple reading of it, that they fall in the latter category, as described
[ Page 12884 ]
by the minister, as mandates that have been developed but perhaps not yet approved by cabinet. So the provincewide mandates in the areas of lands and resources, for example -- is that a document that the policy and implementation branch has developed and finalized and which is now before cabinet, or is that a document that has been more widely distributed?
Hon. G. Wilson: In order to try and get the confusion clarified, my advice is that where mandates talk about general principles, whether they're principles on land selection, on subsurface resources, on forestry resources -- whatever they may be
Similarly, I would say that at some tables
[1035]
There are areas, where we are now making modifications with respect to that approach, that have not yet gone through cabinet. The member talked about, for example, the expedited process and a process to move these treaties along. That is now under active consideration internally, but those documents have not had wide distribution.
M. de Jong: I think I understand and appreciate the distinction that the minister is alluding to, and quite frankly, I think it is set out fairly in the annual report. The reference that I have made is to the work undertaken to develop provincewide treaty mandates. I think that the work -- the latter description that the minister offered -- is covered where the division indicates that it has developed specific treaty mandates for each treaty table, and we can get to that in a moment. But I do want to pursue this a little bit, because the province, prior to the minister taking the helm, released some mandate documentation that could fairly be described as establishing a provincial treaty-negotiating mandate. This reference in the annual report refers to at least four separate areas where new work, or additional work, has apparently been undertaken over the course of the past year. I'm not sure if the minister is saying that all of the work described as having been completed within that section has now been made public, or whether some of it is before cabinet. I'm just not clear on
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, all of the principles that apply to each of those specific areas have been broadly distributed and are certainly made public. On the specific negotiations and on the expedited process that is under some discussion, those matters are being developed on a table-by-table basis, in one instance, and through a separate process with respect to expedited process. Not all of that information is public, because not all of it has received cabinet approval.
M. de Jong: Okay. Well, then, dealing with the specific reference to the development of provincewide treaty mandates around the issue of self-government, is there a document that is now before cabinet, or otherwise under consideration, that would be new to British Columbians?
[1040]
Hon. G. Wilson: There is a discussion paper that is out with respect to self-government and the provisions of it. I think that there has been some workM. de Jong: Maybe it's just a case that, while the choice of wording in the annual report is not intentionally misleading, I think the impression one is left with is that in the midst of the negotiating process -- the Treaty Commission process -- the government is either revising or still in the process of developing mandates in some fairly fundamental areas. That is the impression one would get from reading this document. If it is not a case of developing the mandates that it will be taking to the table across the province, then perhaps it is revising positions that heretofore have been ascribed or assigned to the provincial government. That is the impression I was left with when I read that. The minister, I think, would tell me that I was under a misapprehension or misimpression. He may wish to do that.
Hon. G. Wilson: We're not substantively revising those mandates now. We're certainly not doing it in the middle of negotiations. So the member is perhaps misreading, or reading more into that language than was intended. Maybe the wording is not clear. I think that what the member should be aware of -- and I think what needs to be clear for the public, who have an interest in these matters -- is that as we are in negotiations, various first nations will approach these issues from different perspectives. For example, in the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua negotiation, their approach to what they want in terms of the governance model is quite dramatically different than we've seen elsewhere -- although the principles remain the same; they apply.
So what we're saying is that there has to be a level of flexibility at the table to be able to address the different issues and concerns that come forward and are advanced in the attempt to get a modern treaty, provided that they work within the general parameters which we believe we are mandated to negotiate within by the public. While the specifics may vary, those principles are established. They have not undergone dramatic change since that report was prepared.
M. de Jong: Then maybe the minister could bring the committee up to date from the time covered by this report. Is the work ongoing? I think it is. I think I heard the minister
[ Page 12885 ]
allude to that fact. If it is, in what areas specifically -- within the broader rubric of mandate development -- are the people who have been assigned this task presently conducting work?Hon. G. Wilson: We're just trying to get a list of examples for the member that would make it clear. I think the best way to explain it is to suggest that as we enter into different negotiations in different parts of the province, we encounter different issues that we have not yet encountered. For example, if we are going to sit down in negotiation in the Cariboo, we enter into grazing rights. Well, we haven't dealt with that in a formative way up until now.
[1045]
If we're dealing with largely urban aboriginal people who have section 91 lands that are close to or even surrounded by urban development, then clearly there's very little Crown land available on the land question. So we now have to find flexible ways, given that private land is not on the table. How do we then accommodate the broader concerns that they may have with respect to future settlement and those issues? That becomes challenging.There is, I think, ongoing discussion now around the whole question of land banking -- as to whether or not on a willing seller, willing buyer basis there may be opportunities for first nations to actually acquire land and have those lands then converted into treaty. Or should the province or federal government be involved on a willing seller, willing buyer basis, acquiring land and therefore making those lands available?
We haven't had to do all of those things up until this point, because the first nations who advanced to that stage have not been geographically situated in a manner that would require us to deal with those issues. Those are the kinds of issues where we look at our mandates; and if mandates are not specific on it, we have to sit down and get our head around how we're going to deal with those issues.
M. de Jong: Well, that's helpful. Let's take one of those examples, then. The minister mentioned grazing rights. I presume, therefore, that insofar as a mandate around the issue of grazing rights, that would be applicable provincewide or in those areas of the province where it is a relevant consideration. The minister and the government aren't yet satisfied that they have something that they can give to the various negotiating teams to take to the table as -- we'll call it -- a guiding principle for negotiations where that is an issue. If I've misstated that, the minister can tell me so. Also, maybe he can tell us at what stage the ministry is at with respect to developing the appropriate policy or mandate that would respond to that circumstance.
Hon. G. Wilson: That is exactly what I'm suggesting to the member. The concern that I and our ministry have specifically on the matter of grazing rights is that a rancher may own, fee simple, the ranch, but in order for the ranching business to be viable, they have to have access to a certain amount of unencumbered grazing land. They have to know that access is going to be there. Therefore, because that grazing access is Crown land, the province becomes sensitive to the fact that you can't simply then say, "Well, okay, this Crown land is now available with respect to the treaty process," unless there's some kind of grandfathering of those grazing rights. Now, first nations may argue: "Well, it's our interest to go into the ranching business as well. Therefore we're going to add the number of livestock to that particular area" -- which is going to increase the competition over those lands and put both ventures in jeopardy.
Those are difficult issues to deal with. On the one hand, in some cases there may be a specific claim to the land, which we have deal with from a legal perspective. On the other hand, there may be archaeological issues that we have to deal with, because they'll prove prior occupancy through archaeological evidence. Or they may take a much broader perspective, post-Delgamuukw, and say: "Well, we own it all anyway, so hand it over" -- that kind of thing. So those are difficult perspectives. Whereas it was fairly clear in the Nass and there was a relatively limited land value in Sechelt, the challenge in the Cariboo is a different challenge. Therefore we have to be extremely careful, in establishing our mandates, that we take into account all of those considerations.
[1050]
Now, what are we doing to deal with that? We have a very active TAC up there and a RAC process; the advisory committee process is both regional and technical. We are working very closely with the interior ranchers and have a good rapport with them. I've met with them several times. We're working with the first nations in that area to see if we can find ways in which we can come together to recognize that there may be new approaches.One of those approaches may involve the federal government in terms of looking at acquisition, on a willing seller basis, of certain farms -- people who want to sell, where there's a willing buyer and a willing seller, and therefore there'd be a guarantee of economic development opportunities through established grazing patterns. All of those kind of discussions need to take place in a climate of trust, so that's important to maintain. Secondly, they have to be done recognizing that whatever the final agreement is, it's not going to unduly jeopardize one party against the other. It's a challenging process, and it's one that we're well advanced on in terms of broad-based community consultation, both first nation and non-first nation.
M. de Jong: That also is helpful. I think the minister accurately describes the scenario within which this has arisen -- that challenge for individual landowners to maintain viable operations that, through a number of generations, have relied upon access to Crown land. I think both the minister and I -- and the ministry and the government and the RACs and the TACs -- have an understanding of the challenge, the problem that needs to be dealt with here. I heard, in the minister's response, one approach that both levels of government are examining as a response to that challenge. The note I made as I heard the minister speak was "a federal buyout option." Now, that might be a gross oversimplification of what the minister was talking about, but I am curious to hear him, if he can, expand slightly on what is contemplated there. I'm not sure my terminology is the most accurate way of describing what he was talking about.
Hon. G. Wilson: Our submission is that there may be an opportunity
Our submission is that if there are existing operations, viable operations -- you have a family who have been ranch-
[ Page 12886 ]
ing and want to retire and who have no dependents who want to come in and carry on the business, and therefore are prepared to put the ranch on the marketThe water and grazing rights and the viability of the operation will be established. Basically they're buying a business as well as expanding a land security. From our perspective, that makes some sense. The federal government hasn't quite seen it our way yet. But to me that makes a lot more sense than simply selling out our prime ranch land to offshore buyers who want to do whatever they do with it -- often make it into a recreational tourist attraction for a short number of months during the year, for people to come and vacation on a ranch.
[1055]
From our perspective, it makes more sense, given those opportunities, to take on those opportunities. We're not going to do it alone, because that kind of acquisition requires money. In some cases, it'll require money up front. Those dollars have to be seen as part of the settlement, and therefore the federal government has to be a partner in it. Right now we're in active discussion with the federal government about how we might come to some agreement on how much each of us shares in that process. Quite clearly we have a memorandum of understanding with respect to the land-cash quantum arrangement, and we're not prepared to disrupt that.
M. de Jong: Just a quick question. The exercise that I've just heard described -- is it accurate to refer to that as a form of land-banking? Or is that a different
Hon. G. Wilson: That's a form of land-banking. Given the fact that these land acquisitions may come in advance of being at an AIP stage
M. de Jong: The minister will understand my desire to provoke him a little bit with respect to the status of the negotiations with Ottawa and the position that the provincial government takes with respect to a cost-sharing formula that might be specific to this kind of exercise. I think the minister said it clearly enough, but I didn't quite understand it when the minister referred to the existing cost-sharing arrangements that are in place with Ottawa and his desire not to disrupt those.
Do the minister and the government contemplate, potentially, a separate
Hon. G. Wilson: I must emphasize that these discussions with the federal government are exploratory in nature at the moment, because the federal government holds to the position that they will not move on these lands unless they are federal lands. That's their position formally at the moment. However, we are in exploratory discussion, and I think that within the federal government there are those who see the wisdom of what we are proposing. Not everybody shares that wisdom yet. We are working on that. Our view is that whatever arrangements we make, we would like to see those arrangements be essentially an extension of the MOU agreement that we have now for finalization. We're not interested in setting out some kind of new formula. We think we've established a workable formula. I think those can be cost-accounted in ways that can extend that MOU to this particular proposition.
M. de Jong: Is it fair for me to assume that within the provincial ministry, the mandate that is being developed in this area relates to describing the circumstances under which provincial negotiators would be authorized to embark upon these kinds of negotiations and the provincial position with respect to the sharing of costs involved in that? Am I correct? Is that what the provincial mandate would be about?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, in large measure that is what the provincial mandate would be -- that we would have to set down some terms and conditions. We are very mindful of two things: firstly, that we're not prepared to incur costs that aren't in some way going to be tied to a guarantee on a conclusion; and secondly, we don't want to end up holding land that is now no longer part of a settlement process. So we're going to have to be very careful about how we set out those guidelines. We're also going to have to be vigilant in making sure that our mandate is going to match a federal contribution that is acceptable to us.
[1100]
M. de Jong: Okay. Well, that sounds like a fairly specific task. Can the minister advise when the ministry anticipates having that component of the work complete?Hon. G. Wilson: I think that we could realistically expect to have something completed by this fall.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
M. de Jong: When we talk about it being complete, does that mean that it would have passed through whatever cabinet approvals would be necessary?
Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, and that wouldn't take place until we have an agreement with the federal government.
M. de Jong: Sorry, the minister's lost me. What I'm talking about now is purely the internal work that would be required to develop the provincial position that presumably would guide us in terms of our discussions with the federal government as well.
Hon. G. Wilson: We basically have those guidelines in place now. Those discussions are underway with the federal government. So we have the general parameters, and I've outlined to the member what they are. But any final agreement on this in terms of a mandated approach to give to negotiators at the table, we expect to have sometime in the fall, and yes, it will require cabinet approval.
[ Page 12887 ]
M. de Jong: When we are at that stage, are we at a stage where that is a document that would be released to the public?Hon. G. Wilson: I think that, generally speaking, the answer to that would be yes -- keeping in mind that the driving force for us to take this direction is not coming from government. It's actually coming from third-party interests who are asking us to pursue this, because they see this as a way to get certainty on the land, to move this process forward and to get finalization on the treaty process. So generally speaking, yes, I think that the text of such a document would be public. Obviously I think the member would agree with me that on a specific property-purchase basis, we're not going to be releasing information on what we're willing to pay to somebody who is trying to sell, because we obviously don't want to disrupt that trade.
M. de Jong: So I guess the question I have to ask is: what happens in the interim -- recognizing that there are, I think, negotiation tables at work at which this is an issue now? What does guide our negotiators at those tables? Do they simply proceed on an ad hoc basis, dealing with the circumstances as they arrive? Is that potentially problematic for whatever precedent might be set on a site-specific basis? Does that trouble the minister?
Hon. G. Wilson: Right now the negotiators are not mandated to make any substantive offers where private property is involved, either on a willing seller or a willing buyer basis. So right now they are not mandated to enter into any formative discussion along these lines. However, we anticipate that that is going to become an issue at these tables shortly, which is why we are trying to get ahead of the issue and get this agreement in place in advance of it becoming an issue that stalls negotiations. At the moment negotiations are not stalled. There are other substantive issues that the negotiators can work on, negotiate on and get chapters concluded on, and they are doing that. But I think it is fair to say that by the fall we will have reached a point where we need to move on this issue. The member is correct in that summary.
[1105]
M. de Jong: Not to be unnecessarily argumentative, I think I could make the observation -- and will -- that the minister is relatively new to his post. This surely, however, was an issue that both senior levels of government could anticipate arising, particularly with respect to the areas of the province that the minister has alluded to. The minister says it has not caused disruption at the table to this point. I think the observation could be made that it has certainly caused disruption in the minds of those people whose lives could be most directly affected by those negotiations.In a better world -- let alone a perfect world -- perhaps this issue, this mandate, this policy discussion would have taken place in advance of now. Those people who do reside in the areas affected, including the aboriginal peoples -- who I think want to know how their counterparts across the negotiating table intend to respond to their claims -- would have a better idea of those guiding principles that would be applicable with respect to the specific area of negotiations.
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the member could be right, I suppose. If we had advanced on this front earlier, it may have made some difference. I think that the whole negotiation process was made uncertain because of the Delgamuukw challenge. The court ruling of Delgamuukw, I think, very dramatically changed the approach to negotiations in the province. I don't think we can escape that. But the member may be right; this may have been an approach that we could have tackled earlier. I've been minister since January 29, and it certainly became a priority for me when I came in. We're working on it, and working fairly well. We are going to have a challenge for the federal government. We need to get them to recognize the need to move on this, and we are negotiating with them. I'm hopeful that they'll be constructive in their approach.
M. de Jong: We've focused on one strategy that the minister alluded to: one of the government's responses to this issue around grazing rights and the work that is taking place with respect to developing a comprehensive strategy around that issue. Are there others? Has the government, as part of this mandate development work
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, there are other approaches. Negotiating on the matter of the land-cash quantum is another issue to recognize -- that there'll be less land, more cash -- and therefore allowing the economic opportunity for first nations to choose the businesses and industries they want to buy into or buy themselves is another topic of discussion. Depending on which first nation we're dealing with, that's more or less attractive. Some are absolutely wedded to a land quantum, and others are less wedded to that; they want economic opportunity.
We have to be very mindful, though, that in these negotiations we don't want -- through an interim measure process or through an economic development opportunity that we set up in advance of a conclusion of a treaty -- to short-circuit the discussion toward treaty by becoming so focused on the interim process that we lose sight of the fact that we're trying to get a treaty that will put finality to this issue. We're working very hard to avoid an industry around this process, because it's way too expensive for us to get into.
[1110]
M. de Jong: Although I appreciate what the minister is saying, I think that industry has developed and is here -- and that industry, at least, seems to be prospering.
There is one phenomenon that has arisen out of this specific issue that we are talking about, and that is the difficulties -- in some cases tragic circumstances -- that have arisen for private ranch owners whose fee simple land has been become the subject of a claim. And I know that the minister's immediate response is from the government of British Columbia's perspective: that land is not on the table. Nonetheless, it is the subject of claim -- and, perhaps more importantly, the adjoining Crown lands to which they have had access is the subject of claims. And the impact that that has had on the values of those lands -- in some cases, dramatic drops in value -- and the inability that those people now have, some of them reaching retirement age
[ Page 12888 ]
that essentially preclude them from realizing on their lifetime investment. How can the government better respond to that circumstance and to the difficulties that it poses for people who, for all intents and purposes, are caught in the middle of this process between an aboriginal group who is pursuing what they believe to be their legitimate claim vis-à-vis their private lands or Crown lands, and the governments -- in this case, the government of British Columbia -- that are confronted with the challenge of responding to that claim?Hon. G. Wilson: It's a very difficult situation. It's not dissimilar to any private property owner who has their neighbours on either side engage in lawful activity that diminishes the value of the land. It happens in many parts of the province, for many different reasons. In fact, I'm dealing with one in my own riding right now, where people purchased land adjoining the provincial forest. They have had the benefit of a park-like neighbourhood, only to find now that it's under licence to be harvested this year. Now they find themselves next to an active logging operation. Had they looked at the five- and ten-year cutting plans when they bought two years ago, they would have known this was going to happen.
Not everybody knew that this process was going to engage in the direction it has, and I'm sympathetic to people, frankly, who find themselves caught in that dilemma. One never likes to see people, especially in the ranching community, who go in to purchase land
I'm more concerned and anxious around the latter part of what the member said, about the land values that are being driven down in what might be a deliberate effort to diminish values through processes that some people have explained to me are intimidation tactics or these other kinds of activities. That concerns me greatly, and I think that is unacceptable. It's a difficult issue for the provincial Crown to deal with quickly, because the nature of negotiations is complex. But I think that our approach to this land-bank process may in fact alleviate some of those concerns, because it will allow the federal and provincial governments to come in should those people choose that they want to get out. Should they choose to try to market their properties, they would be able to do so at a fair market value, rather than be faced with these kinds of declines.
It's a tough situation. It's one that I have a certain sympathy for, but it really isn't dissimilar to property values and fluctuation in property values as a result of changing land uses in communities. Sometimes people get hurt, and it's never pleasant.
[1115]
M. de Jong: I think the distinction that I would draw relates to the fact that in the example the minister began his response with, there is a mechanism available by which a property owner can inform themselves of what is likely to follow. That is not the case in the situations that we are considering here. I share the minister's concern. I think he properly draws attention to some of the tactics that are being utilized to artificially drive down prices. I think intimidation is the correct word in some cases.
I think, though, that where the rubber hits the road in the response that we have been discussing -- the land bank or the land purchase -- is in the words "market value," because
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the member is correct. This is a tough situation, because on the one hand, you're sympathetic to the fact that events as they are unfolding may influence the value of this individual's property and that those property values may in fact be in decline. The Crown, federal or provincial or both, may choose to come in and purchase on a land-bank basis. The difficulty that the Crown faces is that it then has a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayer to pay market value, and I can tell you that my short experience here is that Treasury Board won't let you do anything else. You then have to go through the internal operation here to justify what you're paying for the land.
So this is a tough situation. I don't deny it at all. It's one that I'm not comfortable seeing continue, which is why I'm putting as high a priority on this issue as I can get so that we can get resolution to these questions in advance of seeing too many more of these kinds of issues of concern take place. I am aware of at least a couple where I think that some of the tactics that have been used are just unacceptable, and we've made that very clear. So we're aware of it, and we're trying to deal with it, but it's very hard to go out and explain to taxpayers in general.
I'm sure that the member, being the pit bull that he is in question period, would be the first to stand up and demand an explanation for why we pay 10 or 15 or 20 percent, or whatever it is, above market value if we buy this land. It's tough to defend. I guess, by way of answer, I would only say that we are aware, and we are doing what we can to get resolution in advance of this becoming any more difficult than it is.
[1120]
M. de Jong: My last point on this, then[ Page 12889 ]
scrutiny now and then held up when the opposition pit bulls come after the government. There is that document that the government can hold up and say: "We were following the formula that we developed in advance of this exercise."Hon. G. Wilson: That's a fair comment. That obviously is the approach that we're taking. I would only add to that that there also has to be a baseline assessment value of land. Given that we know we're moving in this direction, it would be my view that you establish a baseline and hold to that baseline so that if there's an agreement that we're moving in this direction, those assessed values will be established as a part of the final treaty package. That's why this is so important.
All three parties have to agree to whatever those baseline values are going to be, rather than have one of the three parties or two of the three parties, through their procrastination and lack of action, simply wait out the situation for those values to decline even further so that their demands -- if it's in the case of first nations -- go up because the value's so low or -- in the case of the province -- that we find ourselves unable to sign because the values aren't high enough.
M. de Jong: Well, that discussion, I think, was helpful. Another area that the minister alluded to when we began this discussion about the work that he anticipates being undertaken through the year relates to the urban settings, where exactly the opposite is the case. There is no land available, really -- or very little land available. The minister suggested to me earlier that there was work being undertaken, I presume, to establish the guidelines and the terms around which those tables would move into stage 4 and ultimately stage 5. I'm interested to hear more details about where that work presently is.
Hon. G. Wilson: I guess there are sort of two fronts we're moving on here. In the first instance, we do have a protocol with the UBCM, which is important, because the Union of B.C. Municipalities obviously has an interest in working with us to make sure that all of the issues that relate to the general operation of municipalities -- infrastructure questions, service and supply questions, those sorts of issues -- are adequately and properly addressed in these negotiations. Secondly, the lower mainland TAC has been very active in trying to work through some modelling. Tsleil-Waututh, which is the Burrard band, is being used as a model there. We're looking at those negotiations and discussing how those can be applied.
[1125]
On the other front, the consultation side, we obviously have to engage the federal government in what their evaluation is going to be, given the fact that the provincial land share can't be there. So how are we now going to work these arrangements in terms of how the two governments will come forward? We are making progress. But it's slow, methodical and very careful progress, because we want to make sure that the full range of issues that affect the existing municipalities are on the table. It's taking some time for the municipalities to decide what the full range of issues are; we respect that.First nations who are engaged in activity, as well, are struggling with the broader social context of issues that deals with the fact that many, and in some cases almost all, of their band members don't actually live on the small reserve. They live in other parts of the city. There are those questions, then, about where the land base is to the population. They're having to work those issues through their own process.
I think it's fair to say that progress on the large urban negotiations is perceptible. But it's being very methodical. We're making sure that we don't get out ahead of ourselves, with one group over another, so that we can keep everybody working to basically the same set of directions.
M. de Jong: Once again, my interest lies in ascertaining the extent of the work that has been done or is anticipated to be done in establishing those guiding principles that would be applicable in urban areas. Some of these questions, I'm afraid, will be out of logical sequence, but forgive me for that.
I am advised by individuals involved with the lower mainland TAC group that, for instance, they have received a request to provide an inventory at the municipal level of all their landholdings, be they city halls or fire halls. I don't know if school boards were included. But that request was made, and it caused sufficient consternation for several of them to contact the opposition critic. Where does that fit into this whole exercise -- or does it?
Hon. G. Wilson: The lower mainland TAC did get fairly agitated about that issue. There's no question. I have met with them reasonably regularly, and I hope to continue to do that. Some of the confusion stems from the province's request -- which was actually made sometime last year, prior to my becoming minister -- to get some baseline data. It was predominantly related to the Tsleil-Wantuth negotiations.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Wilson: Tsleil-Wantuth -- the Burrard negotiations.
As I explained to the lower mainland TAC -- I think to their satisfaction, although you may have heard to the contrary -- the whole purpose of doing this was not so that we could start to carve up municipal lands and jurisdictions. It wasn't for us to sort of get an inventory of land that we could pick and choose from. The whole purpose was for us to get a better understanding of the broad base of municipal concerns that they would have with respect to their operations. Their lands are not on the table, therefore what we were attempting to do was to get a baseline inventory of lands that we know are not going to be available for negotiation. Some members of the lower mainland TAC said: "But if we tell you what you can't put on the table, then conversely, you will decide what you can put on the table."
[1130]
To a degree, I suppose that's partly true. But our view was to try to set out a framework within which we could commence discussions with the municipalities and with first nations around where the rub will come when we see what is being demanded at the table -- with what we know to be confrontational and conflicting with the municipalities. We're trying to inform all sides in advance, so that all parties have the same maps and we're all dealing with the same baseline information and data -- to get that on the table in advance of the conflict, so that we don't end up with little bush fires around the place that we have to keep putting out when demands are made for properties that we know are simply not on the table.That's what that was about. I know it did cause some consternation among some people who didn't fully under-
[ Page 12890 ]
stand it and who believed that what we were doing was simply saying: "We want to set out some parameters that will allow us to sort of cherry-pick lands within the municipalities." That's not what it was intended to do at all.M. de Jong: What stage is that inventory at? The thing that occurred to me was that that information was perhaps available to the provincial government in any event, simply by conducting searches at the relevant land title offices. But I may be missing another component to the request that I'm not familiar with. I think the minister knows the question.
Hon. G. Wilson: The initial question was: what stage is it at? I don't know if I can give you sort of a percentage complete, because it's ongoing. But it is true that we could -- and did in fact -- use a variety of different title search methods. We do that routinely to try and sort out what land ownership is.
What we were more interested in was looking at the municipal planning process -- community plans -- to find out what their projections were for future park development, for example; what we wanted to know in terms of access corridors that they were interested in; where they wanted to see expansion of transit services; and where they were going to look at sewer and water line development. Those are the kinds of things that we wanted to get a handle on in advance, so that we didn't come in and say, "Okay, there's Crown land that may be available here, and this may be a subject of negotiation," only to find a municipality come back two months later and say: "Well, wait a minute. A major trunk line is going through here. This is where we are putting in our new water service, and we don't want it to go through a conflicting jurisdiction."
Those are the kinds of things that we were trying to get a handle on in advance. I can't tell you precisely how complete it is, but it's ongoing, and I think we have much greater cooperation now than when the fear was at a high level.
M. de Jong: So am I oversimplifying this again by suggesting that perhaps the objective is to arrive at a point where, if we had a table large enough, we could roll out a map of, for example, the lower mainland and see with relative clarity what land is actually available to these negotiations for possible transfer to first nations? If we recognize that private lands are not on the table and that the minister says that municipal lands are not on the table and that regard for municipal infrastructure development is to be taken account of
Hon. G. Wilson: Well, that is precisely what we are attempting to do. In fact, we are further ahead in some areas than others. For example, in Delta we are very actively working with municipal government to be able to do some of that and to get some of that information together. From my personal perspective, as somebody who is trained in the science of geography, I think in maps -- that's just the way I do. From my perspective, the more you can look at a broad regional set of land use practices and jurisdictions, the easier it is to get a very clear picture of what we're likely to see at the conclusion of a treaty -- which is important -- but more importantly, where we are likely to be 20, 30, 40, or 50 years down the road, given demographic projections, the trends with respect to future settlement and all of those kinds of future development options which at some point we're going to have to live with.
[1135]
We're also actively trying to do that on a regional basis on Vancouver Island. We're having some success. We've had a few bumps along the road in this one, but we are finally getting first nations together to look at the broader prospect of land and land negotiations, so that we can get a better handle on not just land issues but foreshore issues as well -- so that we can get ahead of any potential conflicts there may be on the foreshore use. In some of the coastal bands, of course, the intertidal zone is a very critical part of their culture. It was explained to me the other day that when the tide goes out, their table becomes full -- right? -- because that is very much part of their harvesting process.M. de Jong: So the question that opposition critics love to ask: if that is the objective with respect to the development of that blueprint, when should we expect to see it?
Hon. G. Wilson: This is all being shared with local government now. If the member would like to get access to what is being put out there with the municipalities and the TACs and so on, I'd be happy to share that information. In fact, the less
M. de Jong: I think there is a reason, and the minister may have alluded to it
I think the other obligation that falls to government, however, and particularly as we get into these urban areas, relates to the aboriginal peoples. I think they, in fairness, need to be made aware at as early a date as possible of what the provincial government's position is and what lands the provincial government believes are available as the subject of negotiations. I do think there is that obligation so that first nations people aren't left with the impression that their hopes are being dashed at the eleventh hour at the negotiating table. That gives rise to my question as to when we might see this in substantially completed form.
[1140]
[ Page 12891 ]
Hon. G. Wilson: My deputy, Philip Steenkamp
My deputy informs me that the ministry has been in full consultation with first nations on this issue, so they are well aware of the difficulties with respect to the land acquisitions. There are no unrealistic expectations there. Similarly, through the municipal representatives and through working with municipalities, we are working toward the broader public consultation process that the member quite correctly points out is necessary. I concur; I agree. I think that everybody has to understand what the baseline is. Everybody has to understand what is and is not a subject of negotiation, and there does have to be a much broader base of education around what is and is not available.
At this point I should just indicate who is with me. Patrick O'Rourke is assistant deputy minister. I think I've already introduced Philip, who is here. Anne Kirkaldy is executive director of management services, and Catherine Panter is senior negotiator. Susan Kelly, who is a negotiator, and Peter Smith are here also. Peter Smith is in our communications division. Those are the staff who are here, and I apologize to them for not introducing them earlier.
So that's what we're doing, and perhaps as we progress in these estimates, I will have an opportunity to answer questions that the member might pose about how we intend to better -- I don't want to use the word "educate"; "inform" is a better word -- inform the public of exactly what the process is.
I have a concern. I had a very real concern when I became Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that there is a general lack of understanding about what the process is about, what we're hoping to accomplish, what the potential liabilities or non-liabilities are. I think we do have to find a way, in the absence of the sort of political spin that's so frequently tied to these kinds of discussions, to get out some factual information. I think the best way is in video form and possibly through some educational process -- the Open Learning Agency. That would allow people to understand exactly what's involved with this so that the kind of fears that the member correctly alludes to are not there -- so that we can alleviate those fears in advance.
M. de Jong: If I could take us back to where we began this discussion, I think we got a sense, when we were talking about grazing rights, of the mandate development work that is taking place. We just now talked about a process that the ministry is undertaking as a means, really, of beefing up the arsenal of information that is available to all parties and to third parties. What I'm still a bit unclear on is the work, those guidelines that the minister alluded to when we were talking about grazing rights policies. What is it that the policy and implementation branch continues to work on? What should I look for later this year insofar as a completed mandate around the issue of settling treaties, specifically, on lands within urban areas, where those lands, quite frankly, aren't as readily available, as we've already identified?
[1145]
Hon. G. Wilson: I think what the member may look for and, hopefully, will see sometime by mid-fall is a memorandum of understanding with the federal government with respect to the issue on land-banking and issues on land acquisition and, secondly, an agreement-in-principle on an urban-based first nation that will encompass, will incorporate, all of the kinds of issues that we have talked about. Our intention is not to develop mandates in the abstract. We want to keep them very specific to the table, so that they're relevant to the discussions at the table. I've certainly made it very clear that from my perspective, we must not protract negotiations. We need to find a way to expedite them, to get them forward and to get them properly resolved. So those mandates will be developed, toward one urban AIP.M. de Jong: Well, I appreciate the answer insofar as I think it's a clear answer. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the logic. Here's the difficulty, if I can express it this way. British Columbians will want to assess, as they did with the Nisga'a treaty, how this government fared in negotiations and, if there's a new government, how they'd fare in negotiations. One of the ways they can do that is to measure that first urban-based treaty against the policy that the government itself has developed. If the government's approach is, "We'll see how it goes, and you will know what our approach is, what our policy and our mandates are by virtue of what we arrive at in the first set of negotiations that give rise to a treaty," that's, politely, a bit self-serving. That is really an argument that we're going to go in and do the best we can, which might be the approach a government wants to take. It is a different approach than saying: "Here, in the case of an urban-based treaty, are the principles around which we believe the settlement should be based" -- set them out beforehand and then compare the results. I think those are two very different processes. The minister may wish to comment on that.
I note the time. I'm not sure what the tradition is, but I'll make the motion that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada