Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999

Volume 15, Number 13

[ Page 12893 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is with pleasure that I introduce Mayor Frank Leonard, who is president of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. He's here today with other executive members, and I understand that the various MLAs will be introducing their local councillors and mayors as well. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Clark: I have two sets of introductions to make. Visiting from my constituency are Don and Viviane Mueller and Bill and Marcia Gordon. They last came to Victoria last year and found the normal debates not as interesting as they might have, so they came back this time for question period, they tell me. I hope the House will make them welcome.

We also have with us today the parents of Rishi Sharma, who works for the Liberal caucus. Surinder Sharma is the past president and a longtime volunteer for the Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria and currently president of the Vishva Hindu Parishad of Canada, and his wife Krishna Sharma is also a member of and longtime volunteer for the Inter-Cultural Association, and an executive member of the association. I hope the House will also make them very welcome today.

S. Orcherton: I just had the good fortune to meet a number of new folks who are residing in Victoria-Hillside. I didn't have the opportunity to make the formal acquaintance of them all, but I'd like to advise the House that we have a number of people here as refugees from Kosovo, who are now residing in the constituency of Victoria-Hillside. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome not only to these chambers but to British Columbia and, indeed, to Canada.

Hon. I. Waddell: A part of the cement that holds this great country together is our national broadcaster, the CBC, which we believe should reflect the regions of this country to the other regions and to all Canadians and should be well funded to do that. Accordingly, we've intervened with the CRTC and made that point in Ottawa. I'm very pleased today to have in the gallery Ms. Rae Hull, the regional director of television, CBC British Columbia. I'd ask the House to welcome her.

T. Nebbeling: On behalf of the B.C. Liberal caucus, I'd like to welcome Mayor Frank Leonard, president of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. I would also like to welcome to the House the rest of the executive: Councillor Pearl Myhres from Zeballos, Director Roxanna Mandryk from Comox-Strathcona, Chair George Holme from the Nanaimo regional district, Councillor Stan Dixon from Sechelt, Mayor Russ Hellberg from Port Hardy, and last but certainly not least, John Crook from Langford. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

P. Nettleton: I'm delighted today to introduce to the House a number of constituents all the way from Vanderhoof, just north of Prince George: Kevin and Gloria Griffith, their two children, Clarissa and Kylee, and a friend, Murray Barch. Please join me in giving a warm Victoria welcome to these folks from Vanderhoof.

G. Robertson: I'd like to introduce today two constituents of mine who are members of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities executive: first of all, Councillor Pearl Myhres, who is the first vice-president; and His Worship Russ Hellberg, who is a director-at-large and also the mayor of Port Hardy. They both do outstanding work for rural coastal communities in British Columbia. I ask the members to please welcome them.

The Speaker: I recognize the very patient Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, they're easily offended over there.

I'd like the House to welcome two friends of mine. Martin Negus is a very able teacher in the high school system in Prince Rupert, and Steve Boggis is a very good friend of mine who now lives in Nanaimo. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Sitting up behind the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities members are my friend Barb Barrett and her friend Edna. Will the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

STRATA PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to introduce the Strata Property Amendment Act, which will amend the Strata Property Act. The Strata Property Act was passed by this Legislative Assembly in July of 1998 but is still to be proclaimed. It's a new comprehensive code for strata property development and governance in British Columbia. After consultation with the community, as was promised, the Strata Property Amendment Act will strengthen and clarify the scope and application

[ Page 12894 ]

Strata property ownership is an important source of housing in the province. There are almost 900,000 strata lots in British Columbia. There's great anticipation within the strata community for the new strata property legislation which will be brought into force. The proposed amendments are necessary before the Strata Property Act can be implemented.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move that Bill 68 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 68 amends the Forest Act to streamline operations for forest licensees and government. The bill also repeals obsolete provisions and corrects minor drafting errors. The streamlining amendments will reduce the cost of doing business and allow government decision-making to be more responsive. The repeal of obsolete provisions should improve the business climate by providing more certainty for licensees. The changes in this bill will contribute to government's commitment to reduce the cost of doing business and to increase government efficiency.

[1415]

Oral Questions

RESULTS OF FRBC EXPENDITURES

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I categorically deny that $2 billion has been blown. What would the opposition not have funded -- the $420 million for enhanced forestry and backlog. . . ? No, they wouldn't fund that. And they wouldn't have funded $282 million to repair the forest environment. It wouldn't have been done. They wouldn't have done that. The $313 million spent on inventory. . . . It wouldn't have been done by that side of the House. And there's more that they wouldn't have done.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

First supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: Well, if the minister doesn't need to ask me, he can ask his own members, ask his own NDP colleagues. Why doesn't he ask the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca? I know it's Thursday, and he will get an opportunity to ask his question later. But just in case he doesn't, I'll quote him. He says: "If you think we're critical or have some serious questions, wait till the auditor general and his gang get in there. They'll have a field day." Now, I know it is rumoured that this minister is on the fast track on his way out of cabinet, but before he goes, can he tell this House exactly what it is that his own colleagues are so very, very worried about?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We take criticism from anywhere it comes. Our MLAs. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .would like more money spent in every one of their ridings, as would that side of the House. But they won't have the guts to ask for more. That side of the House would not have spent the $72 million over. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .the last five years to develop forest recreation and tourism opportunities. That side of the House would not have spent $276 million for communities' and workers' support. They wouldn't have done that. Finally, the $125 million in research to grow better forests and better products would not have been forthcoming from that side. This side is prepared to stand behind the spending record of Forest Renewal. We're proud of it.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: The minister says: "Ask and ye shall receive." So who was it that asked for the FRBC shaving kit? I don't think it was any member on this side of the House. You know, even Lee Doney, the FRBC chief, has said today: "You get yourself in situations where, in retrospect, it wasn't the right thing to do. And I'm sure we have got stories like that in FRBC." Well, if Mr. Doney is correct and there are horror stories in FRBC, and if he has kept the minister informed -- and I don't want to pre-empt any further questioning along this line -- will the minister table today any documents, any reports and any information that he has that detail the horror stories in FRBC?

[ Page 12895 ]

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We're looking at the performance of Forest Renewal. We're quite prepared to stand behind the changes we've made to have a more focused corporation, where the companies who ask for it have more responsibility for delivery. If they have horror stories, perhaps you can ask them. I'm prepared to stand by our record and say that yes, there has been criticism of Forest Renewal, but yes, we have made steps to correct it. I'm happy to say that in the business plan that we announced today, another $300 million is going to be spent to support workers and communities, to reinvest in the land base and to provide training and value-added product development -- $22 million that's been signed on to support the value-added industry in British Columbia. That side wouldn't have done any of that.

SUITABILITY OF PROPOSED FRBC EXPENDITURES

G. Abbott: On Tuesday the NDP released the latest instalment of their bailout proposal to the federal government. Certainly we were grateful for it being leaked, because it identifies a couple more things that the opposition wouldn't do with FRBC. For example, this so-called adjustment support proposal shows that the government wants to hire 15 "forest adjustment coordinators" at a cost of $110,000 each per year. Will the Minister of Forests tell this House and tell the thousands of unemployed forest workers and their families, who are struggling to pay their rent, how these forest adjustment co-ordinators, at $110,000 a pop, will help put people back to work in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We approached the federal government to see if they were interested in share-costing some programs to assist unemployed forest workers. We believe that there has to be accountability that goes along with that. Therefore there has to be some people who are there administering the programs in a responsible way so that we can provide an explanation to the workers, the communities and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: This bailout proposal contains another suggestion, which we certainly would reject on this side of the House. It's $600,000 for "business counselling in areas such as restructuring of debt loads." This, I think, is a surprising suggestion from this NDP government, given that they have brought us the 1992 deficit reduction strategy, the 1995 debt management plan, the 1997 financial management plan, the 1998 revised financial management plan and, most recently, the 1999 five-year fiscal planning framework.

Will the Minister of Forests tell us why on earth any business -- any forest business in this province -- would take debt-restructuring advice from this government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The debt-restructuring assistance would come, really, from the forest business community and people experienced in that. When you offer it to small businesses that want to grow, then you obviously go to the people who are successful in the business and ask them to provide the advice. There are some very interesting and useful programs with respect to financing small businesses. We support the Community Futures programs, and we support a venture capital program -- all are targeted to assist companies that want to expand and restructure. It's important that when they borrow money, they have to have advice. The value-added industry has told us, in case the opposite side doesn't know, that they want business support services, and we're prepared to provide that. That side wouldn't.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

BRITISH COLUMBIA'S JOB CREATION RECORD

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

E. Walsh: At that time, he was their hero -- even when the Premier of New Brunswick was in fact stealing jobs from British Columbia, using fairly blatant subsidies to do so.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. We need to hear the question.

E. Walsh: My question to the minister is: can the minister confirm that in the current New Brunswick election that that province is having right now, the job creation record is being compared to other provinces? Can he tell us where this province ranks, relative to the favourite province of the members opposite?

[1425]

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, order!

Hon. M. Farnworth: Right now in Atlantic Canada, in New Brunswick, there is an election underway, and the provincial Liberal government is running on their record of job creation. They're saying their record of job creation is the best in Atlantic Canada. This is a Liberal government saying this, so they must be telling the truth -- because, as the opposition says, Liberals never lie. They never fudge; they always tell the truth. And you know what?

Interjections.

[ Page 12896 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And hon. Speaker. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, it's difficult to hear with all the noise in the room.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . .the provincial Liberal government in New Brunswick say they have the best record in Atlantic Canada and the third-best record in Canada. Guess who the Liberal government is saying is best in the country over the last ten years in job creation. From 1988 to 1998 the province of British Columbia led this country. A Liberal government says it's so, hon. Speaker!

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, members.

B.C. BUSINESS INCORPORATION RATE

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order in the chamber!

Hon. I. Waddell: I thought the member was going to ask me about bankruptcies, and I was going to compare Alberta to British Columbia.

But I want to talk about starting new businesses. New businesses are starting in British Columbia at a record rate. StatsCan said that from 1991 to 1998 we had the fastest growth in small business in the country -- 7 percent. Now, my friend gave the figures for the Liberal government in New Brunswick -- what they said about our job growth. That's StatsCan, the federal agency, saying that we're growing. We're growing in tourism. We're a pot of gold in tourism; we're booming ahead in tourism. We're growing in the film industry. We're growing in high-tech. We're creating a whole new economy here, and it's being driven by small business.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

J. Reid: In the first quarter of 1999, new business incorporations were down 13 percent over the first quarter of last year. That is 700 businesses that should have started but haven't.

[1430]

Hon. I. Waddell: Perhaps I could answer the hon. member's question by showing her a letter that I have here from Charles Locke of the Skiing Louise Group. They invest in skiing, in business, all over western Canada. He says: "You probably are. . . ."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. I. Waddell: If the hon. members would listen. . . . He's talking about the exciting potential of investing in Fernie and Kimberley and other parts as well:

"Your recent directives about making British Columbia a friendlier place to invest are. . .encouraging. You probably are not aware that the Alberta government does not share your feelings with respect to mountain resort development, hence the shifting of our focus to British Columbia. We expect to invest, either for our own account or for the account of our resort partners, over $200 million at each resort over the next five years. Bearing in mind the considerable investment that Intrawest is making in Panorama, I expect that over $500 million will be invested in the East Kootenays during the next few years, with the bulk of the money coming from Alberta."

The Speaker: With the bell ending question period, I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary.

Petitions

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
(continued)

C. Clark: Before we broke for lunch, the minister was talking about this economic plan that the government has. I'd

[ Page 12897 ]

[1435]

Of course, that's not quite consistent with what the Premier used to say when he was running in the election. He said that the NDP would eliminate 452 management positions by the end of March 1996, that they would reduce the number of ministries from 18 to 15 and that they would eliminate 1,023 positions -- for a savings of $70 million. This is the Premier talking. The Premier then went on to say, in October '96, that there'd be $750 million in cuts to government spending and the elimination of 3,500 public sector jobs. He said that it would bring the total number of jobs eliminated in the public sector to 5,500. Did any of those promises come to fruition?

Hon. M. Sihota: There have been reductions in the size of the civil service, and I'm pleased to advise the member opposite of something she doesn't know. We have the smallest civil service, per capita, in the country. It always concerns me when members opposite complain about the size of the civil service. When you take a look at the civil service on a per-capita basis and recognize that we have the smallest civil service, we're getting remarkable value for money, and we're getting remarkable mileage from the people that work within the public sector.

On this side of the House, we value the work that people in the public service do. It's been my observation. . . . For the 14 years now that I've had the opportunity to serve in this chamber, I have been struck by the dedication of people in the public service and the kind and the quality of the work that they do -- above and beyond, I think, the call of duty. I've worked with conservation officers and been out with them at four in the morning while they've been, on their own time, trying to catch someone who's trying to poach elk. I've had officials come into my office at 11 o'clock at night, during night sittings, and. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, I've done that too. I make no apologies for that, hon. member. You may have a problem with that, but if you've got a problem with people being hands-on and going out there and doing their job, then you'd better rethink why you're in this business.

Talk about being hands-on: civil servants show up in my office at 11 o'clock at night, after they've put the kids to bed, to try and work on a file and to see our way through a problem -- a remarkably dedicated and very efficient public service. I take issue with the Leader of the Opposition, who constantly says that the public service is something that gets in the way -- that is fat, that is bloated -- and takes the view that they ought to be cut.

The member should know that I'm also deeply concerned and deeply disturbed by the kinds of comments we've been hearing from the Leader of the Opposition of late. He's been going around telling people that he will "fire government employees" who are on the payroll only because of their NDP ties. In this society, where people ought to be free to join political parties and to exercise their democratic rights in that way, never have I known anybody who gives anybody a blood test to see whether or not they're NDP or Liberal when they come into our office as civil servants. I tell you, we don't do that in the hiring process either.

Not only is it a fallacy for someone to make that kind of accusation, but more disturbing, the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would go around this province and openly say that he will fire people on the basis of their political affiliation is an affront to the kinds of rights that we try to establish in this society. It is offensive, and I would encourage the member opposite to stand up in this House and distance herself from her leader, stand up and say that they will not go out of their way and fire people on the basis of political affiliation, and come out and acknowledge that her leader is wrong. It is wrong in our society to say that people ought to be fired from the civil service because of political affiliation.

[1440]

C. Clark: You know what is an affront, hon. Chair? It is an affront to the public when the government hires people not based on merit but based on what they think the political views of the people they're hiring are. That is what is an affront.

The public service is there to serve the public despite the government. The public service is there to serve the public no matter what political views the government holds. It is there for the public. It is supposed to outlive the government. What this government has done to the public service -- which is a mass politicization -- is an affront to the public.

They have gone in and taken what was once the most professional, non-partisan civil service in Canada and done everything they could to pervert its ends to the political ends that this government holds. It doesn't take you very long out there being a hands-on minister talking to people to find out that public servants in British Columbia are profoundly worried about that. They are profoundly worried that their ranks have been so infected by partisans, by people who've been hired solely because they're members of the governing party, that their ability to do their job has been affected. That is the problem.

There is a balance to be held in government; there is no question about that. At the political level, you're supposed to have political people; you're supposed to be able to hire people based solely on their party membership. But you have to have a balance. You can't allow that partisanship to infect the civil service.

Maybe the minister should spend some time going to talk to some of the people a columnist for the Vancouver Sun can apparently find. It was just the other day that we saw another

[ Page 12898 ]

I do want to talk today a little bit about the order-in-council appointments that the government has made, how they go about hiring and how they go about determining merit for the civil servants, but I don't want to leave this point about the size of the civil service yet. What I am contrasting is this. . . . On being sworn in as minister, the minister's first comments were: "I am not going to cut the civil service." I want to contrast this with exactly the opposite comment that was made by the Premier when he was sworn in. He said: "When I was sworn in as Premier last week, I said my first priority was to cut the size and cost of government." That is clearly at odds with this minister's direction. Will the minister tell us if that policy that the Premier clearly put in place in 1996 has changed?

Hon. M. Sihota: I am disturbed to see that the member opposite has not deviated from the position that her leader is taking. I'll tell the member right now that people are hired on the basis of merit. That's how they're hired. Now, the member suggests that the whole bureaucracy in British Columbia, putting aside OIC appointments -- and I listened very carefully to what she had to say -- has been politicized. Well, I suspect, then, that the member ought to have some kind of list. Is the opposition out there preparing a list? If there is a list, table it.

C. Clark: Give me a break. The minister, if he is such a hands-on minister, will surely be out there talking to civil servants and hearing exactly the same thing that I hear, that reporters from the Vancouver Sun can hear, that reporters who report on Ottawa can hear. And that's that morale in the civil service is at rock bottom, because the people who deserve to have their jobs are being leap frogged, are being beaten out for promotions by people who hold NDP cards. That is an affront to the public. The public deserves to have a civil service that they can count on; a civil service that is entirely free of partisanship; a civil service that is there for them no matter what political direction the government has chosen, no matter when the government changes. They deserve to know that those civil servants are there looking out for their interests, not looking out for government interests.

[1445]

But I want the minister to answer the question I have asked twice. His comments are so at odds with the Premier's position on the size of the civil service. The Premier said, when he was sworn in, that his number one priority was to cut, cut, cut the civil service. What happened to that priority, and why has the minister chosen to change direction?

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member stands up in this chamber and says that people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation. I want the record to be very clear on the point that people are hired on the basis of their merit. I know of no process where people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation. Now, there are OIC appointments, and we all know what the role of OIC appointments is. But we're not talking in that context. Neither was the Leader of the Opposition, and neither is the member today talking in that context. She's making a very serious allegation based on what she reads in the Vancouver Sun. I mean, give me a break. Is that the depth of her investigation into that type of allegation? It's a pretty serious allegation that people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation.

So now the Liberals are going around the province and saying that they will fire government employees who are on the payroll -- because of their ties with the NDP. If I can paraphrase what the hon. member just said a few minutes ago, they want to cleanse the public service. And I want to ask the member opposite: how do the Liberals intend to do that? What is your plan? Have you compiled a list of people who work in the public service that you're going to remove? Is that your plan? Are you going to a worksite, to public civil servants, and say: "Well, show us the card"? And if there's a card, are they fired? Are you going to keep track of who puts up lawn signs in the city of Victoria and check on them and say: "Well, gosh, you put up a lawn sign for a candidate for the NDP. You're out of here"?

I want the member to understand the seriousness of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying. He's saying that he will fire people who are affiliated to a political party, and he says that in a free and democratic society where people have a right to join a political party, are free to express their opinions and are free to campaign for political parties -- openly. That's the kind of tradition we've built here in British Columbia, and now the members opposite want to turn the clock back to some kind of society where you're fired because of your political affiliation.

I thought society had advanced well beyond that point. I thought that the member understood that point very clearly. I thought that for sure she'd stand up and try to explain away the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. Putting aside OIC appointments, I find the comments of the member opposite offensive, and I'll give her one more chance to tell us exactly how it is that the Liberal Party intends to cleanse the public service.

C. Clark: Well, the minister seems to be so interested in tradition. The tradition that this government has followed

[ Page 12899 ]

[1450]

We are going to restore that sense of pride, so that the people that. . . . If you want to get a job in B.C.'s public service, and if you're qualified for that job and you've got the experience required, you can get that job without ever showing anybody what party card you hold. You don't even have to belong to a political party if you don't want to. You don't even have to belong. You don't even have to put up a lawn sign in elections. You don't even have to go out and work for candidates on the government's payroll. You don't have to do any of that stuff. You can if you want to, but you're certainly not required to. That's the way it's supposed to work, and that's the way we'd like to see it work. That's the way -- after the next election -- it's going to work.

I want the minister to answer this question, and this is the fourth time that I have asked it. When he was first appointed, the Premier said his number one priority was to cut, cut, cut the public service. Now this minister says that he's not here to lay anybody off. Will the minister explain why he has changed the Premier's stated policy on the public service?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me make this very clear, hon. Chair. On this side of the House we do not, through the hiring process, ask people to show a political card to see what their affiliation is before they are hired. And remember that we're having this debate in the context of non-OIC hiring within the government. We don't ask for that, but interestingly enough, the logical extension of the kind of position that the hon. member is taking is that they're going to go around and ask people for their cards. That's precisely what she's saying, because the only way that you can cleanse the bureaucracy -- because that's what you want to do -- is go around and ask people to show their cards. We don't do it; they want to do it. It's offensive that the Leader of the Opposition would want to go around and try to fire people, as he says, because of their ties with the NDP.

Again I reiterate: we're in a free and democratic society. People are free to associate with any political party. They're free to campaign on the part of any political party. They're free to express their opinions, and they ought not to face ramifications for going out and doing that. That's the way we've created our society, and the Leader of the Opposition goes around and says that he would fire people from government because they exercise their right of political affiliation. Surely in 1999, on the dawn of a new millennium, that's wrong. Yet the member opposite stands up in this chamber and reinforces the views of the Leader of the Opposition by saying that they would "get rid of" these people.

Well, I want to know who these people are. I think civil servants of British Columbia want to know how it is that she's gone out or intends to go out and identify who these people are and how it is that she intends to get rid of them. Surely she's got some kind of list -- produce it. She's been cataloguing some kind of names -- show it. She's got some kind of strategy. Doesn't she think British Columbians should know it? All they know now is that the Leader of the Opposition has gone around and made this incredible comment repeatedly, saying that people with NDP ties would be fired from government.

Before we go further, I want to know from the hon. member: what is her strategy? How does she plan to get rid of these people? How does she intend to identify them?

[1455]

Why not go and hire somebody based on their merit, no matter what party they belong to? This isn't Soviet Russia. This isn't a one-party state. This is a diverse society of people with all kinds of political views, and people should be free to exercise whatever political view they like. But if they exercise the wrong political views, they can't work for the government.

Let's look at what George Morfitt, the auditor general, had to say. He suggested that there were people working in government that were asked to do things specifically by politicians to meet political ends. He suggested that there were bureaucrats who played along with the government's agenda on that. That's not right. Our society requires a balance of the political level and the civil service level, and they should be equal and separate. You should have, at the political level, people who are hired for their partisan ties; people who are hired because they hold a party card; people who are hired because they will carry out the views and the ideas and the agenda of the people that were elected in this province.

But equally you must have an essential public service that is non-partisan; that is hired based solely on merit; that isn't there so that they can act as stooges for the government's ideological agenda -- people who will be there day in and day out, with their noses to the grindstone making sure the work gets done instead of spending all their time in meetings worrying about the scandal of the day or worrying about how they're going to push through the government's latest ideological plan. You have to have a balance, and my point is that this government has upset that balance profoundly.

[ Page 12900 ]

But, you know, it doesn't seem that there's much of that happening with this government. If you walk in and you can't prove you're a New Democrat, it doesn't matter how qualified you are. The government already has somebody in mind for the job, and this civil service has been infected with partisanship. Its ends have been badly perverted, and it has been corrupted by the government's ideological agenda. We will return professionalism to this proud civil service in British Columbia -- that's what we'll do.

Now I will ask the question again. The Premier, when he was elected in 1996, said that the very first thing he was going to do was cut the civil service. He said he was going to cut 5,500 people from the civil service. In October of 1996. . . . The Minister Responsible for the Public Service, when he was first appointed, said that his first priority was to keep people on; he wasn't going to lay anybody off. Where did the change in direction come from? Why did the minister decide to act against the Premier's orders?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's look at the position that the hon. member is taking. She is saying: "We will restore balance to the civil service." The presumption that she makes -- and she says it very clearly -- is that the civil service, as she puts it, is infected by people that are associated with my political party. So she wants to restore balance. How does she intend to restore balance? Does she intend to go out to every worksite in British Columbia, engage in some kind of a witch hunt, ask people to fess up and show what their cards are -- to demonstrate what their political ties are -- and then say: "Look, we've got four NDPers here, so now we've got to hire four Liberals here"? By the very logical extension of the position she's taking, she has to go to the worksite and identify people on the basis of their affiliation. It's a shame.

[1500]

I'll tell you: you can't find anybody. The problem here is that it's one big lie. You know, for weeks and years we've heard the members opposite -- based on what they read in the Vancouver Sun, not on the basis of any kind of fruitful investigation, go around. . . .

The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain stands on a point of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice the Chair's reluctance to call the member to order, but on two occasions he's alleged that the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain is lying. I would demand that he retract those comments.

The Chair: I'm sure that if the minister feels that he's impugned any member in the House, he will withdraw. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain will come to order.

Minister, I would ask that you withdraw. . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: I withdraw anything that may have offended the member opposite in terms of a personal sort of attack on her. . . .

The Chair: The word "lie," I believe, is the word we're looking for -- if you would withdraw it.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, hon. Speaker, I said it is. . . . I made it very clear. I want to make it very clear. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just did. If you'd just settle down, you would have heard me.

The Chair: The minister has withdrawn the offensive word -- okay?

Hon. M. Sihota: But look -- and this will be very, very clear -- the Leader of the Opposition is going around the province of British Columbia and saying that he will fire government employees who are on the payroll only because of their NDP ties. The member opposite stands up and says -- in this chamber, five minutes ago -- that during the interview process people are being asked what their political affiliation is. Well, I'm saying that that's not occurring. I challenge the member opposite to give me one piece of evidence -- when she knows better -- about one individual that has gone through that kind of process.

G. Farrell-Collins: We know who's on your list.

Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain says: "Right. We'll fire people who have an NDP tie." Well, it is outrageous, in 1999, to say that people will be

[ Page 12901 ]

An Hon. Member: Exactly.

Hon. M. Sihota: And they say "Exactly." It is offensive.

You know, I'm telling the members opposite that people are hired on the basis of merit. They're under some false illusion that all these people who work -- including some of the people that are sitting in this chamber, I guess, because some of them have been hired. . . . Throughout the professional civil service. . .the members opposite say that the civil service is "infected" by people who belong to the NDP. I say shame on the members opposite. They should know better.

[1505]

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, isn't this something? Now they want to try to hide behind wiggle words in the quote. Listen to what your hon. member said. He said -- and I have read it, all right. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: The point is very clear. During the course of this debate, the members opposite have repeatedly said that they will fire people because of their affiliation with the NDP, that the public service is infected by people in the NDP. Well, I'll tell you what.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, no. I'll tell you what. I'll give the members opposite the opportunity to stand up in the House and explain what they meant, what their leader meant -- what he really meant to say. At the end of the day, what he's saying to people is that they'll be fired because of their ties with the NDP. That is offensive.

C. Clark: You know, sometimes I feel like we are very, very fortunate that no one in British Columbia believes this minister anymore. This minister has so little credibility that no matter what he says, no matter how untrue, he'll never get away with it. At least we're fortunate in that respect, because what the minister has done is take a quote and turn it into something where he says: "The B.C. Liberals won't hire someone based on their political affiliation." No, that's not correct. What the B.C. Liberals have said is that we won't hire people based on their political affiliation alone. We won't hire people just because they're a member of a certain political party. We will only hire people if they are qualified. We will hire them based on merit. That's what the B.C. Liberals will do.

Let me quote for the minister. Here's what it is in writing: we will "restore a professional, non-partisan civil service. We will pass merit employment legislation to establish the highest-quality public service based on competency, not political promotion." That's what we'll do. I would challenge the minister: if he believes in those goals -- which he claims to -- and if he believes what he says he believes in, then will he vote for the merit employment legislation that we've introduced to this House? Will he support us in our campaign platform to have a merit commissioner? The minister knows full well that people that are working in the civil service aren't going to come to him and say: "Gee, Moe. Guess what, Moe. I know you don't care about my political affiliation, but guess what. . . ."

Interjections.

The Chair: Order members. Member, take your seat, please. This debate, members, has reached a point where we're very repetitive in argument, and members are getting heated to a point of breaking the rules on both sides. So I would ask members to perhaps take a moment, reflect where we are and proceed with some kind of rational debate on the estimates.

C. Clark: The minister knows full well that people who are currently employed by the government will not be coming to him for fear of their jobs. They're not going to come forward and say to the minister: "Gee, minister, I'm really concerned about the way the public service hiring process works. I think that your political party is tainting it with partisanship." Of course they're not. People won't do that for fear of their jobs. That's why we need a merit employment commissioner in British Columbia, someone who's independent of the government and who can stand up for civil servants that are concerned about what's going on no matter who's in government -- someone like the auditor general or the conflict-of-interest commissioner who would stand outside of the partisan process of this House; someone who would be appointed unanimously by an all-party vote of the House and who would be able to hear the concerns of public servants in private, confidentially, without fear for their jobs. That is precisely the problem.

This minister doesn't get it. He thinks that there must be no problem, because people don't come to him directly and complain about the fact that his political party is causing a problem. Well, guess what. There's a good reason for that: they live in fear for their jobs. That's why they don't do it. This minister demonstrated his understanding of the way balance in the public sector works. He took my comments about balance to mean that what you've got to do is have an equal number of partisans in the public service. So for every four New Democrats you have, you've got to have four B.C. Liberals and maybe a Reformer or two. That's his idea of balance in the public service. My idea of balance is a public service where people are hired regardless of where they stand politi

[ Page 12902 ]

[1510]

If the minister is so committed to this idea that we need to have a non-partisan public service that's untainted by partisan ends, will he support the introduction of a merit employment commissioner, who would be outside this Legislature -- similar to the auditor general or the conflict-of-interest commissioner -- to whom public servants could report on matters like partisanship and who would be able, on an ongoing basis, to monitor the application of the merit principle by the government in its hiring?

K. Krueger: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Krueger: On behalf of my colleague from Langley, whose business duties take her elsewhere at the moment, I'd like to introduce 55 grade 5 students from Willoughby Elementary School in Langley, their teachers, Mrs. Silen and Ms. Matson, and seven adults who are accompanying them. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the member opposite believes, as she has said, that the civil service is infected with people that are affiliated with my political party. . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: . . .oh, and that they're only hired. . .that the only qualification -- and we'll get to that in a few minutes -- for their entry into the civil service, the only basis. . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, no, listen to me.

. . .for these infected employees, if I can put it that way -- the subset, of what she calls infected employees -- to be hired was because of their ties with the NDP. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, then, I want the hon. member to stand up and name one name.

K. Krueger: You've got the names. You've got the list.

C. Clark: The minister knows full well that public servants will not be coming. . . .

Interjection.

C. Clark: Oh, the minister wants it. You know why? This is exactly the problem that public servants have. You know, the minister says: "Well, the reason. . . ." He never hears about any problems, so there must not be any problems out there. Doesn't he understand that people would be concerned about coming forward to him, one of the most partisan members of the New Democrats, to complain that there are people around them who are being hired solely on the basis of the fact that they're associated with his party?

Doesn't he understand that people like that might be concerned for their jobs? Or doesn't he care? Or maybe he wants to build a list. Maybe he wants to build a list to find out who those people are, find out the ones they haven't gotten to yet. Maybe that's what the minister is after. But if the minister is truly concerned about civil servants whose morale and whose work life is being affected by the fact that they can't get ahead in their jobs because the merit principle isn't being properly applied, then surely he will support the creation of an office for a merit employment commissioner which would be able to operate independently of this partisan Legislature and would be able to monitor the application of merit hiring and merit promotion in the civil service.

[1515]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'll answer the question in a minute. But let me challenge the member. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, no, let me. . . . You know, the problem that the Liberal Party has gotten into is that their leader and their party believe -- and, I will argue vehemently, wrongly -- that the civil service, to quote the member opposite, is "infected" by people who have been hired only because of their ties with the NDP. That is not the case. If the members believe that, if they sincerely believe that and they want to stand up, as they have, in this chamber and outside and make that kind of allegation, then they should be prepared to name at least one name -- and they can't.

I'll tell you why, hon. Speaker -- and now I'll answer the member's question. Section 8 of the Public Service Act reads -- and this is a statute of British Columbia -- that "appointments. . .from within the public service must (a) be based on the principle of merit, and (b) be the result of a process designed to appraise. . . ."

G. Farrell-Collins: Surprise -- you've broken the law. There's a shocker.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if the hon. member thinks that we have broken this provision of the statute, he should stand up and, firstly, put it on the record. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair.

[ Page 12903 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Member, you've been recognized.

C. Clark: Oh, thank you, hon. Chair. I didn't hear you recognize me in the din here.

What the minister is saying smacks of the worst era of McCarthyism I can imagine. He sits there and says: "Name names. Come forward. We want to know who's complained. We want to know who's giving you information. We want to know who's talking to the reporters. We want to know where the leaks are."

You know, it sort of reminds me of the comments of his erstwhile travelling companion. Let's remember that he was going to go travelling the province with the wife of the latest addition to cabinet. Now, what did she say? Ms. Tyabji Wilson said something similar to what the minister said, which was: "You know, we know that there are problems in government. We know that there are civil servants out there who are leaking things, who are telling stories to the opposition." She said: "Our first job is to go, find who those people are, root them out and fire the saboteurs." Remember that? That was her attitude about cleaning up the public service. Then, not a week later, the minister decides he wants to hit the road with her, do some travelling around and talk about policy.

Well, that's the minister's attitude about the public service -- the worst kind of McCarthyism we've seen in this Legislature in a long time. Standing up, wanting us to name names and come forward with the leaks so they can fire the saboteurs. . . . Well, the minister knows full well that it ain't going to happen. We are not going to stand up here and compromise those hard-working civil servants who've come forward with complaints about this government. We are not going to do it. We are not going to compromise those people who've had the courage to speak up. Now, maybe they don't have the luxury of going out and risking their jobs, putting their butts on the line for a government that is concerned about partisanship. But we are not going to jeopardize those people.

If the minister is genuinely concerned about giving those people a way to complain, a way to make sure that the merit principle is being applied, then surely he will support the creation of an office of a commissioner to monitor the merit principle in British Columbia. If he doesn't support that, maybe he can tell us why he doesn't.

[1520]

The Chair: The Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Northern Development on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: I have been listening with interest to the exchange. I suspect that both sides have probably deviated somewhat from the estimates process. Perhaps it might be a more fruitful discussion if we returned there.

The Chair: That's the same view that the Chair has. I would like to deal with the estimates before us.

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 8 of the statute. . . .

I won't comment on the last interruption from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, because it is discernibly different from what I heard and other members heard him say. But that's okay, you know. There are members in this chamber who. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. We're on the estimates, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 8(2) of the statute says: "The matters to be considered in determining merit must, having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed, include the applicant's education, skills, knowledge, experience, past work performance and years of continuous service in the public service." So those are the bases upon which people are hired in the civil service.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: In response to the question that the member had raised earlier on -- once they settle down -- we did make some reductions in the civil service. We continue to make reductions in certain ministries within the civil service. We've also brought forward a job security provision within government, within the collective bargaining process that protects the integrity of the paycheques of the people that work within the civil service.

We have, at the front end of our term, proceeded with a series of downsizes. The allegation or the suggestion that was made back when I assumed this responsibility was that we would be proceeding with a massive downsizing. I've indicated that we weren't going to do that, and we haven't done that. We've protected the paycheques of civil servants here in the greater Victoria area and throughout British Columbia.

One of the reasons why we did that was because in years past it has been noted, by people throughout the greater Victoria area in particular and certainly by people who were involved in looking after the economy in this community during the mid-eighties, that if one went through massive downsizing within the government, it had a chilling effect on our economy.

We as a government made a very conscious decision to try (a) to protect the job security of workers in the public

[ Page 12904 ]

So there is no inconsistency here between the course that we laid out in 1996 and where we are at today, the trend line that we're on. I think what's noteworthy is the way in which we've been able to structure this, particularly with regard to the gain-sharing and job security provisions.

C. Clark: I don't know who's telling the truth here, but while the minister says that there's no contradiction, it appears to me that there is a contradiction. The Premier said that he was going to cut the civil service. When we first started out this morning, the minister said that the size of the civil service has remained static for the last three years -- the direct government employees. So which one of them was telling the truth?

[1525]

The fact of the matter is that we have downsized. We're not prepared to proceed with any massive downsizing of the civil service at this time. Our focus is working on training-, development- and morale-related issues.

C. Clark: I was just saying to my colleague that I wish I had my notes from this morning, because when we were talking about the growth of the civil service, we were talking about the total growth in job numbers in British Columbia. Sixty percent of the new growth in job numbers last year was in the public service. The minister wasn't very clear about where that job growth occurred. If it didn't happen with direct government employees, where did it happen?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have the statistics from StatsCan that the member referred to, so I don't know the basis upon which StatsCan does its classifications. I'm advised that part of their classification is based on public debt expenditures, and the allocations in terms of public sector job growth are based, in part, on the expenditures that we make on debt. As I said to the member this morning, when we build a school, a road or a hospital, it may be that StatsCan counts those people as public service employees, when in essence it's through a private bidding system, through the private sector, that people get that work. I think that's the reason, in part, why we've got differences between what StatsCan does and what we do.

My responsibilities are for the direct public sector. I think you can get information from the Crowns. If the member is having difficulty in getting that information, I'd be quite happy to give her information that relates to the growth within the Crowns, if there is any. I don't have that here, but I'll make sure that staff work with me to try to get that, and I'll send it over to the member at some point.

C. Clark: Yeah, I would like to get that information. There has clearly been a growth in the public sector in British Columbia, but for the purposes of this debate, the government decides to define the public sector in a different way than it normally does. I mean, if people are being paid by government, that's a pretty good definition of public sector -- if that's where their money is coming from, if it's being negotiated according to wage guidelines that are set by the public sector.

For example, maybe the minister can give us an answer on this, on wage guidelines. The government negotiated with HCL a nice, big fat pay raise for highway construction workers with HCL, and that pay raise exceeded the public sector wage guidelines. Can the minister explain for us why the government chose to exceed its own guidelines on public sector wage increases?

Hon. M. Sihota: My understanding of that is precisely what the hon. Deputy Premier is saying: if you look at the length of the contract and the time period, it was a contract that was not renewed. And if you extrapolate it out on that basis and look at the time period the whole contract has covered, you're not off those guidelines.

C. Clark: Well, it's not a retroactive contract. It's not -- you know. . . . The government sets wage guidelines that it's supposed to live within year by year. Those wage guidelines aren't for a ten-year period. Why don't they. . . ?

Interjection.

C. Clark: Oh, maybe the government wants to explain that to the public sector workers that are out on strike. Okay, now they're changing their guidelines. They're doing it over a ten-, 15-, 20-year amortization period. Is that how the government's public sector wage guidelines work? Maybe the minister can clarify for us how it is that the public sector wage guidelines have gone from being a year-to-year guideline to something that's retroactive. If they are retroactive, and they are amortizing it over a long period of time, is that period ten years? Is it 20 years? Or are they looking at a 30-year period?

[1530]

C. Clark: Well, I'll leave that issue for a little while; we'll certainly come back to it.

We were talking about -- we've gone off on a little bit of a tangent here -- the Public Service Commission. We've identified the minister's reluctance to put up what would essentially be a policeman for government, a policeman for the merit-

[ Page 12905 ]

The minister has talked, though, about the Public Service Commission, and he's talked about making sure that there is diversity within the public service. He's indicated that he wants to make sure that there is better representation in the public service, we know, of New Democrats. But we also know he wants to make sure that there is better representation of women, visible minorities, disabled people and people who normally get shortchanged. Can the minister tell us what targets he's set for equity hiring?

Hon. M. Sihota: The member hasn't established anything. I just thought I'd let the issues go by, since we'd had a vigorous debate on it. But we do have a commissioner -- sitting next to me, actually. He is the commissioner of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. For the record, the Public Service Act, which obviously the members opposite are not as familiar with as they should be, makes it clear that hiring is on the basis of merit. In terms of equity hire, on the visible minority side it's our objective to achieve a higher representation rate that is equal to that which is in the public at large.

C. Clark: Well, the public service commissioner does have the power to direct that certain hires be made, that exceptions to section 8 be made. How often has the commissioner done that?

The Chair: The member has the floor.

C. Clark: How often has the public service commissioner made exceptions to section 8?

Hon. M. Sihota: To the best of our recollection, it may have been used maybe half a dozen times over the last four years.

C. Clark: What strategies has the minister implemented or created to make sure that they increase the diversity of the public service?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, in 1993 we brought forward an employment equity statute and made amendments to the Public Service Act. Astonishingly, the Liberal Party voted against it. In addition to that, we brought forward a whole set of other initiatives. We had a directive to the deputy minister to the Premier in the mid-1990s to try to improve our record. We worked in consultation with the Visible Minorities Employees Association of the public sector to try to change some of our practices. We created an equity and diversity division within PSERC. We have individuals dedicated to that work right now.

[1535]

R. Thorpe: I was in my office, listening and trying to work, and there was this noise from time to time. I was looking at a report, which I received not too long ago, that the Public Service Employee Relations Commission sent to the minister in December of 1998. I'm sure the minister has read this report in depth and understands it. The debate you were having was the number of employees in the provincial government. Does the commission keep monthly running totals by ministry of the number of employees working for the government?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Well, if we do, why does there seem to be such a debate here on the figures? Maybe the minister could commit to providing those monthly figures to the opposition so that we could have a look at them. Would the minister undertake to do that?

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: If the member has a pen, he should write down the number 387-0512. In his capacity as an MLA, he could dial that at any time.

R. Thorpe: One of the things that most of the members in this House have always appreciated is the sincerity of this minister. So I do appreciate his. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Yes, hopefully, they can see the tongue in my cheek.

When will this. . . ? I notice that this report was late for the years '96 and '97. When will this report and its detail be ready for this House?

Hon. M. Sihota: Is the member asking for. . . ? He didn't quantify what year.

R. Thorpe: When will the report be ready for the year ending March 31, 1999?

Hon. M. Sihota: It should be ready by September.

R. Thorpe: Changing subjects. . . . I want to thank the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain for allowing me to ask this question. Last week, when I was back in the riding, I met with some community social services workers. These individuals are very, very troubled. They do work with people in our community: the Okanagan Independent Living Society, the Family First Society, the transition house, and the Penticton and District Society for Community Living -- we know that affectionately as the training centre. These workers are feeling betrayed by this government, feeling left out. I wonder if the minister could share with us his expectations on when

[ Page 12906 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, the parties are currently in negotiations. I'm advised that progress is occurring at the table.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister could -- through you, Chair, back to me -- give his views on why these community social service workers are feeling so betrayed by his government.

Hon. M. Sihota: We are in the middle of a labour dispute on that very issue. We're in the midst of a very difficult labour dispute. During the course of any dispute, emotions run strong. This government has a pretty good record -- a very good record, in fact -- of looking after the working poor in society and trying to enhance services. As well, we have a very good record in terms of dealing with issues as they relate to pay equity. But I understand -- and I've had many occasions to deal with people that are on strike -- that emotions run strong. I think that perhaps a more appropriate time to talk about the depth of their emotions is when these matters, as they relate to labour negotiations, are resolved and there is a contract before us and we have a better sense of where everybody's going. At that time, my view is that any sense of betrayal that people have will, I'm sure, be remedied through the collective bargaining process.

[1540]

Hon. M. Sihota: We are serious and committed. We are in the midst of negotiations right now. I suspect that the parties would not be back at the table if there wasn't a sense of commitment or seriousness.

C. Clark: So where is the minister's commitment to child care workers? They took a strike vote understanding that they were at the table, that they were part of the bargaining that was going on, that they were going to be funded. They were told that by government. They took a strike vote based on that understanding, and now they're being told that, well, they're not part of the negotiations at all. Where is the government's commitment to that group?

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's be frank about what's happening in this chamber right now. On one hand, there's a very sensitive labour dispute happening in this province. That brings upon me some reluctance to talk about these issues, because I've learned from many years in public office that when there is a labour dispute, one is best advised to allow for the issues to be worked out at the table. There is, on the other hand, a slight bit of opportunism at play, as well, by the members opposite. I think it's well known that both our political party and our government -- and certainly someone who represents a constituency of the working poor. . . . Historically there has always been a strong affiliation between our government and those workers, which makes the dispute even more difficult when you're in the midst of negotiating with friends. So I will resist the temptation to say too much, out of respect for the fact that we are in the midst of a debate at the bargaining table, and I would trust that the member opposite will also resist the temptation to be opportunistic.

C. Clark: I'm asking about the people that the government is refusing to negotiate with, the people that they're not in negotiation with. The people that thought they were in negotiation with the government or with the government's agencies took a strike vote on that basis, walked away from their jobs in order to try and force the government to bargain with them and then found out that the government was never bargaining with them at all.

My question isn't about the people that the government's bargaining with; my question is about the people they are not bargaining with, the people that are not at the table, the people they've kicked out of the room and shut the door on. My question is: why has the government decided in midstream, after telling child care workers that they were part of the negotiations and that their table was part of the bargaining, that suddenly they are not going to negotiate with them at all, and they're not part of the negotiations?

[1545]

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, it's not, with all respect to the hon. member, and I know she started these estimates wondering what my mandate was. I can understand that that might be a little confusing. But technically, this falls outside my mandate. Having said that, I'll be in the Chair's hands and under the Chair's advice in terms of how to deal with that element of the issue.

Let me just say for the record that there is a lot that gets said during the course of negotiations. We again have a very good record in terms of enhancing child care services for working families in British Columbia, a record that really distinguishes us from all other governments in Canada. As we've expanded the repertoire of child care services that are available and as more people have come on-stream to provide those services, that raises its own set of issues. Those issues are currently at the bargaining table.

There's a lot of sensitivity and sympathy from members on this side of the House for the families that are affected and the workers. It's in everybody's interest to see that the matter is resolved with some dispatch. I think it's everybody's agreement that the dispute has gone on for some time now. It's been my experience, when disputes go on for this length of time, that the atmosphere is created to bring about a resolution. It's my understanding that the parties are back at the table. It's also my information that the discussion at the table is progressing well. Therefore I would anticipate that at the table, the very issues that the member flagged will be addressed.

C. Clark: My question is about the people that are not at the table. I want to know from the minister why they are not at the table. When did the government make the decision to change its policy with respect to child care providers? Low-wage redress was provided through PSEC for five years. The previous ministers -- granted, not ministers for the public service -- have always considered it and have stated publicly

[ Page 12907 ]

The Chair: Would the minister please stay seated.

Member, we are dealing here with the appropriation of the Ministry for the Public Service. The minister has said that this line of questioning is not within the purview of his ministry. Therefore I would ask that the member change the line of questioning.

C. Clark: I guess if we're relying on the minister to tell us what questions he feels like answering, we may have shorter estimates. If we rely on the minister's advice for which questions he feels like pursuing and which avenues he doesn't feel like pursuing, it could be a lot shorter. This morning we established that this minister is involved -- and he freely admits it; he proudly boasts about it -- in every ministry of government, especially when there's a problem. He goes in and solves it. He rides in on horseback and solves the problem. Well, there is a problem in the public service, and here's the Minister for the Public Service. Oh, suddenly he's not responsible for it. Oh, gee, suddenly he doesn't feel like answering questions about it. Well, okay. If the Chair wants to take direction from the minister about what he feels like answering and what he doesn't feel like answering, then I suppose that will be the rule of this House.

If the minister doesn't want to stand up and give child care agencies any sense of comfort about why the government changed its direction, why it went back on previous ministers' very firm commitments, why the government has locked them out of the room and is refusing to deal with them after they've had a strike vote -- isn't giving them any remedy, now that they're stuck out there hitting the bricks, after they've led them down this garden path. . . . Well, he doesn't have to do that, I suppose. That would be the rule of the House.

[1550]

The Chair: Member, take your seat.

Hon. D. Miller: There was a point of order. This is not part of the estimates of this ministry.

The Chair: I'd like to remind the member that this line of questioning does not fall within the purview of the minister. If the minister says that he chooses not to answer that line of questioning, that is his choice. So I remind the member to stick to the ministry at hand.

C. Clark: Let's talk about the collective agreement that the government has concluded with the BCGEU. I understand that the government is going through a process of reclassifying all the employees in the government. I wonder how far that process has gotten along.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me just say a few things. First of all, I've never heard a question in this chamber that I haven't enjoyed answering. I think the member knows that I enjoy debate in this chamber. But like the member opposite, I'm also constrained by the rules of this chamber, and as much as I'd love to get into a debate around issues that fall outside these rules, I can't. I know that the member takes issue with that. I'd love to have that debate. I understand, however. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I can't change the rules unilaterally, and neither can the member. I think the member knows full well that the negotiations. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's right.

Hon. Chair, you know, I really don't like upsetting the member opposite. It does cause me great pain to see her so upset. I wish I could give her the comfort of a further dialogue. Let me suggest this, then. Perhaps we can talk about it when we recess at 6 o'clock. I can talk to her about the relationships between the various employers on the child care side. Or I can certainly arrange for her to meet with the Minister for Children and Families to discuss the matter further -- or, alternatively, with the bargaining committee. I think it's quite appropriate for the member to express concern around these issues, and so I'll certainly undertake, if the member wishes, to make those arrangements for her so that she can be better informed.

With regards to the question that she asked, the reclassification process is only triggered when there's a change of incumbent.

C. Clark: I would love to have this discussion with the Minister for Children and Families too, but she says she's not responsible either. So we've got the Minister for the Public Service, who says he's responsible for everything, saying he's not responsible and he doesn't want to talk about it. So he wants to pass it along to a minister who says she's not responsible, even though the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, who's responsible for everything, says that she is responsible. But that's the only thing that he's not responsible for. So that's how. . . .

I'm getting a picture of how this government is structured. So the idea here is that the minister will only answer the questions that he feels like answering. He'll decide whether it's in his purview or not. When he came in and said that he was going to take stock of his universe, he was going to be the minister for everything, well, there were some corners of the universe where he didn't want to go. There are some corners of the universe where he doesn't want to stand up and have the debate. He says: "Let's stand up and have the debate." And then he sits down and says: "I don't want to debate it." It's bizarre -- a government in total chaos. Nobody knows who is in charge of what, and this minister decides he's only in charge of what he feels like being in charge of, or he only wants to talk about some of the things that he's in charge of. It's totally bizarre.

[1555]

C. Clark: Exactly. The member says: "The minister can do anything that. . . ." Well, anyway, I won't get into that.

[ Page 12908 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me deal with both issues that the member raises. I know that the member opposite is a rookie member, and I know that all members that are new to government sometimes have difficulty finding their way through the maze of government. I hear the member expressing that frustration. So I'll certainly make sure that she meets with the appropriate minister to continue that dialogue -- which, by the way, may well be the Minister of Finance. Like I say, we've all been new to this chamber at some point, and we've all had difficulty finding our way through the maze of government.

The member is also mistaken on this point: the reclassification time line issue that she flags was a matter that fell within the purview of the old contract. There is now in place a new contract, and time lines are not required under that new contract. Rather, the reclassification occurs either when the position is empty, when an employee requests it or when a position is vacant. I understand that those are the three bases upon which the changes occur. I think the distinction lies in the fact that we've now gone to a new contractual regime.

C. Clark: You know, I really take offence at listening to this minister stand here and patronize me with making some personal comments in this chamber. This is the same minister that's the first person to stand up every time and say: "Oh, gee, don't get personal. Don't talk about the Premier's house being searched; that's personal. Don't talk about me taking my wife on a trip; that's personal." He stands in the hall and cries his crocodile tears about people getting personal, day after day after day -- his standard defence. And he's the first person to stand up. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order.

The Chair: Member, please sit down. I recognize the Minister Responsible for Northern Development.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, clearly, Mr. Chairman, it's not my role to draw attention on a continuous basis. . . . But to simply stand and rant on a matter that is completely unrelated to the estimates that are under discussion in this House is, I think, an offence of the rules. Perhaps, while it may be difficult to focus on the specific questions concerning the ministry, it might be more fruitful.

The Chair: May I remind all members to limit their discussion to the Ministry for the Public Service.

C. Clark: So while this minister is quite happy to talk about other people's personal lives and other people's families in this chamber, he'll cry his crocodile tears and make sure that nobody. . . . You know, every time somebody wants to criticize him, it's a personal matter. Well, it's the height of hypocrisy -- the height of it.

The minister talked about the BCGEU contract and how it was under the last contract that the government finished its formal reclassification process. How much did that add in total costs to the contract?

Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand it, the member was asking about the cost of the classification process. The cost of that over the life of the contract is about $8 million.

C. Clark: The minister said $8 million for the reclassification process. Is that right? I want to just be clear with that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes -- the life of this contract.

C. Clark: I do want to be clear with the minister. Is he talking about the cost of the process or the total cost in added wages and benefits for the employees?

[1600]

K. Krueger: It seems to me that a lot of people are still grappling with the minister's job description and the new ministry. I understood one of the minister's goals -- or the government's stated goals when the ministry was created and the minister was appointed -- to be that the minister would act as oil in the machinery, if I could use that term -- a minister who would work in the situations where there are interministerial responsibilities touching on a particular problem and try to ensure that things moved ahead and got accomplished.

I'd like to bring to the minister's attention, in this House and on the record, a matter that I wrote to him about, where I hoped that he would be able to accomplish something in fulfilling that role. This pertains to a number of my constituents. Some are farmers, and some are residents living along the Westsyde Road, which is on the west side of the North Thompson River in my constituency. They are residents of the city of Kamloops. They live below the Lac du Bois area. A new park has been created there during the last several years.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

This area may be one of the watersheds most disturbed by human activity in British Columbia. Ever since the days that the Hudson's Bay Company was establishing itself in the Kamloops area, there have been various irrigation systems and water diversions, and so on, and this has continued to this day. There's cattle ranching in the high country above Westsyde Road. There's a very large Ducks Unlimited project that's been approved. There's a lot of interministerial cooperation, and that involves the ministries of Agriculture, Environment, Lands and Parks; of Transportation and Highways; and Forests, including their range management people.

So all of this interaction that occurs and the various projects that have taken place in that territory are believed by residents of Westsyde Road to have given rise to the problems they're currently experiencing, which can't really be attributed just to years of excessive precipitation. These people are experiencing a dramatic change in the level of water in the water table under their properties. One constituent, for example, had a raspberry farm when she moved to her property. The land was quite dry, and she had to irrigate it constantly to produce

[ Page 12909 ]

I know that the minister is familiar with this file, because he wrote me on it recently, so I don't want to take up more of the House's time than is necessary to outline these details. But suffice it to say that these people are really stressed by the problems that they're experiencing with the water table.

I've been delighted with the level of cooperation of the civil servants in the various ministries, and these are long-term civil servants, not recent appointees. They are people who are genuinely concerned with the issues and with service to the public, as they should be. I know they've been working between themselves. They've certainly met with me at my request. We took a group of the affected residents. We all took the time to travel up to the grasslands far above Westsyde Road, and we looked at the Ducks Unlimited project and the various diversions.

We agreed, all of us -- as commonsense people can do, both civil servants and members of the public who have goodwill -- on a solution to this problem. There is some disagreement as to whether the Ducks Unlimited project or other projects have led directly to the problem, but the fact is that the water seems to be percolating underground through different patterns than it used to, so it's showing up on these people's land. An old streambed below Westsyde Road, leading into the North Thompson River, has long since been farmed over, and no one knows where it used to be. But there is an individual, a fine man named Mike Puhallo, who's willing to allow the water to be channelled through his land, and he has dug a trench through his own land for that.

The residents proposed -- and it seemed that the ministerial employees of all ministries involved also believed it would be a commonsense solution -- that a trench be dug parallel to Westsyde Road and just above it on Crown land, that pipe be installed to collect the water, however it's percolating down to that level, and that it be diverted into Mr. Puhallo's trench. The residents were willing to donate the labour and the machinery to do the job; they own machinery between them. All that was required was some permission from government, and what was desired was perhaps some contribution towards the necessary materials -- the pipe and so on. Apparently there's pipe that would be donated by Afton mine properties, which are no longer in service as mines.

[1605]

What I read was just typical bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo: "You've got to apply to this person and that person, and you've got to get permits." The message seemed to be: "You're not going to get any help from us, because we've made that a park." We were hoping for better from this minister and this new ministry, and if that's an indication of the sort of progress one can hope for from this ministry, then I think people probably won't be bothering. Listening to the minister today rant and rave about political issues and challenging the opposition as if we're on the government side -- to say how we're going to deal with things as if we're government -- when in fact he's government and responsible for the mess this province finds itself in, I have less and less hope that he's actually going to deliver anything as the Minister Responsible for the Public Service -- and even that term will become reason for more public cynicism in this province.

Frankly, I'm really disappointed with the minister's performance in the one opportunity that I've seen him have to actually prove he can accomplish something for the people of British Columbia -- at least in my constituency. I'd like to ask him, on the record, if he's had any second thoughts about that, and whether he's willing to try a little harder to do something for my constituents along Westsyde Road.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I recollect that letter, the member was looking for some funding. Of course, that's our job as MLAs. An effective MLA knows how to cut through the red tape. But I understand the member is also new to this chamber, and that may have been part of the problem. If he has not had the opportunity to talk to the Kamloops water management office on Dalhousie Drive in Kamloops, then I'll make sure that I make the appropriate arrangements for him to go there and meet with staff to see if he can find a way through the maze.

K. Krueger: The minister isn't reading his mail. Even in the preamble to my question, I mentioned that that ministry sent people to attend the scene of the problem with me, and so did the Ministry of Forests. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways were also cooperative. But nobody can get anything done with this government, because this government's all about process and paper-pushing and procedure and baloney, rather than results. If this minister is just a talker, just a figurehead, just a person to get up here and rant and rave until his voice breaks and he squeaks but he never really delivers anything, then maybe he shouldn't have a budget at all. Maybe we don't need this ministry. What's the point of it?

Can't the minister do better than offer to set up appointments for an MLA who he should know, if he's reading his mail or even listening to my question, has already had those appointments and has the cooperation of those people? But they are clearly bound up by a government where one ministry doesn't talk to another and it's questionable who's really in charge. And there's the Premier, who flies in like a seagull and dumps all over situations and squawks and flies away, leaving everybody wondering who's actually in charge. Is this minister just a person appointed to enjoy a minister's salary, or is he actually capable of delivering some results on the ground, other than offering to arrange meetings?

[1610]

[ Page 12910 ]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. M. Sihota: The advice that I would give. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has asked a question. The minister is answering. Would members please come to order.

Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Puhallo just has a problem. He doesn't want his member of the Legislature to sit here and heckle away like that. He needs an explanation as to why it is that he's not getting help from the civil service. I would suggest that perhaps it has something to do with the kind of approach that the member opposite, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- his MLA -- takes towards civil servants when he says: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government." My advice to Mr. Puhallo is that he should give a phone call to perhaps a little bit more effective MLA -- the member for Kamloops, the Minister of Environment -- and I'm sure she'll take the time to look at his file and see if we can work through it. Because she doesn't take the view that bureaucrats are people to go after.

H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.

Motion approved.

H. Giesbrecht: Hon. Chair, I have the honour to make an introduction on your behalf. Visiting us today in the gallery are some 30 visitors from New Frontier School in Silverdale, Washington. They're here to compare governments and learn a little bit about the local history and other applicable topics. They are accompanied by five adults and their teacher -- I hope I have the pronunciation correct -- Ms. K. Taasaas. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

C. Clark: I just want to follow up on the questions of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, because I think the minister deliberately misunderstood what he was asking. He was not asking for the cooperation of just the civil service; he was asking, more importantly, for the cooperation of the minister -- which is supposed to be the minister's bailiwick. That's supposed to be his job -- the guy that goes in and fixes all the problems wherever they may be, the minister responsible for the universe. That's what he was asking for -- not for a piece of advice, just for a little bit of cooperation from the minister and a commitment that the minister will go in and use his powers of persuasion to get this problem solved. So I should think it would be an easy thing for the minister to stand up and say: "Yes, I'll fix it," or "No, I refuse."

[1615]

He's known to have said: "Fair warning to those bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government." Remarkable. This is from the same member -- if memory serves me right -- who at one time said in this chamber that if you can't get things done the first time, you whack them once; and if that doesn't work, then you whack them twice. Perhaps the hon. member is running into difficulties associated with his attitude toward civil servants.

That's why I would be happy to ask the other member from Kamloops to take the time to see if she can meet with Mr. Puhallo and exert her powers of persuasion to try to deal with the problem. But we do have this problem. The member opposite, the member who asked the question, earlier on talked about morale in the civil service. And it just seems to me that morale within the civil service must indeed suffer when members of this chamber publicly say: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government."

I don't know what the member was referring to. Are they intending to have massive downsizing within the government? Are they going to just willy-nilly fire civil servants? Are we going to again see the kind of chilling effect that we had in British Columbia when there were massive layoffs of public service workers?

The members opposite say a lot of nice things, a lot of platitudes to the public sector, but you know, the point isn't lost, I think, on most people in the public sector when members of the Liberal Party stand up saying: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government."

So I'm quite happy to assist Mr. Puhallo -- who obviously is dealing with an MLA who doesn't get support from the civil service, I expect, because he utters these kinds of words -- and arrange for him to meet with the other member from Kamloops to see whether or not there's an opportunity through that process to solve Mr. Puhallo's problem. Because he is clearly dealing with an MLA who's out to get bureaucrats, as he puts it.

C. Clark: You know, it is a little hard to take, to hear the minister stand up and offer advice to other members of this House about how to behave with respect to public servants. It's a little bit hard to take from this minister, a minister who was disgraced in his job and kicked out of cabinet because of the way he treated public servants. That's why he spent time languishing on the back benches. That's why the government was forced to kick him out of cabinet and into the penalty box for two years -- because of the way he treated public servants.

[ Page 12911 ]

"In this case, I have found that all of the public servants involved acted with the utmost honesty and integrity. They maintained the highest possible degree of professionalism and respect for the office occupied by [the now minister], something that I regret to say was not reciprocated by Mr. Sihota. It is my view that his judgment failed him in this particular respect and that he did cross the. . .line of what constitutes fair behaviour in a politician's relationship with public servants. He was overly aggressive in his language and challenged the truthfulness and legitimacy of information provided to him. . . . There are admittedly no. . .rules of conduct on these questions. . . . I am, however, of the opinion that some action is needed to confirm that this manner of dealing with public servants is not acceptable. . . ."

[1620]

"My review of this situation and my discussions with officials involved and with [the member] compel me to address another aspect of this matter. In the interviews I undertook, a number of the officials referenced the aggressive manner of the telephone communications. Certain of the employees at motor carrier department felt intimidated, particularly since these communications emanated from an MLA and cabinet minister. One of the reasons why so many officials became involved with this file was because of the discomfort felt by junior officials, given what they describe as aggressive language and the refusal to accept explanations of what had happened in the process. As a result, other more senior officials were asked to deal with the minister on the file."

The Chair: Member, you're out of order.

C. Clark: . . .he will accuse us. . . . He will offer advice to the member for Kamloops. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Members on both sides of the House have taken liberties.

Interjection.

The Chair: I will call for order when things reach a point where it needs to be called. Conduct of members is not open for debate in estimates. We're dealing with the appropriations of the minister's office. I would ask members to continue in that vein.

C. Clark: Well, the one result that British Columbians can be thankful for as a result of this report is that the deputy came up with some recommendations about how to fix the problem -- how to make sure that guys like that don't treat public servants the way that he did, that people like that don't take the public interest and end up in situations like the one Mr. McArthur had to report on, how to make sure that people like that treat public servants with some respect, that people like that start treating public servants along some ethical guidelines for government. That's what this report recommended. It recommended some rules to fix the problems.

Now that he's been kicked out of cabinet because of the way he treated public servants and now that we have a report on why he got kicked out of cabinet -- because of the way he treated public servants -- and the report says how we can fix the problems so that we don't get ministers like that, who treat public servants that way. . . . Now that he's back in cabinet and responsible for those very same public servants, can he tell us: is he going to implement the recommendations that Doug McArthur made when he was doing his report on why this minister got kicked out of cabinet in the first place?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that they have been implemented. But the member raises some points. Let me say that in response to that report, I did take the opportunity to apologize to staff. I thought that it was an appropriate request that Mr. McArthur made, and I acted upon that request.

May I also say that I would only ask the same of the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. He says: "Fair warning to bureaucrats: we are coming after them when we are government." Now, I think that kind of an approach also warrants an apology.

Having said that, the answer to the question is that they've been implemented.

C. Clark: Well, good. So the minister. . . . In fact, I should end my quotes from this report with the final comment that Mr. McArthur made. He said: "In my view, if Mr. Sihota is considered for a cabinet appointment in the future" -- of course, granted at the time that no one thought that was ever likely to happen, but now that it has -- "it is essential that he first apologize to the public servants involved." So it's nice to hear that at least he's gone that far to make his way back into cabinet.

Bizarrely, the minister is now responsible for the same Motor Carrier Commission that he was found guilty of harassing by Mr. McArthur. He is, bizarrely, in charge of that. I understand that the minister has had some meetings with respect to a taxi industry strategy and the Motor Carrier Commission. Can the minister tell us the progress of this taxi industry study and what it's going to take into account?

[1625]

I have had some representations from people in that industry who wanted to meet with me to discuss a range of issues. I listened to what they had to say.

[ Page 12912 ]

An Hon. Member: Ask the minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the member's right: you should ask that question of the appropriate minister. But to the degree to which I am prepared to reflect back on that meeting, let me tell the member that I had a meeting with people in the industry to talk about their approach with regards to work that was being done with regards to industry. I'm sort of struck by the word "study." I'm not too sure if there was a study in place. I think they just came to reflect on their observations of their experiences.

C. Clark: Was the Minister of Transportation present at the meeting?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if that's got anything to do with my estimates. And I honestly can't remember.

C. Clark: We established very early on in these estimates that the minister -- that part of his job as minister. . . . In fact, I think he introduced his estimates with the comment that he was the guy responsible for sticking his fingers into various ministries and fixing problems. That was part of his job on this economic A team that he's a part of -- going in and finding ways to kick-start the economy.

Presumably a taxi industry study might be part of that strategy. They're involved in the economy. It's a perfectly legitimate part of the estimates. I don't think the minister can dodge this one. Can the minister tell us what the nature of this taxi industry study is and what involvement he has in it? If the Minister of Transportation wasn't present at the meeting, what is the involvement of this minister in that study?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's common to meet with lobby groups who want to express opinions on matters of government policy; I do that daily. The member, I know, has FOI'd my daily timer, so she knows better than I what date that occurred. But in any event, I met with them because they wanted to be heard. I listened to what they had to say. That is my recollection of about as far as it went. I will have to check, and I'll be happy to ascertain and advise the member later as to whether or not the Minister of Highways was there.

C. Clark: Well, it appears to me. . . . The minister's right: I apparently do know more about this than he does. It was January 22; the minister met regarding a taxi industry study. By the minister's standards, based on the rest of his daytimer it was an unusually long meeting. I cannot understand why it would be referred to in his agenda as a taxi industry study if there wasn't a government initiative being discussed. When you look at the rest of the daytimer, and the minister is just meeting with lobby groups or interest groups, it just says: "Meeting with interest groups. Meeting with stakeholders." This says: "Meeting re taxi industry study."

Is the minister saying that there is no study ongoing in the government that he is at all aware of, involved in or has had any meetings about that could be characterized as a taxi industry study?

Hon. M. Sihota: Certainly I'm not involved in any of those matters.

C. Clark: Did none of those matters come up at his meeting, then?

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me be really clear here, because the member is sort of making certain assumptions. As I recall that meeting, representatives of the industry wanted to come and meet with me to discuss their concerns about the industry and canvass with me a whole range of concerns that they had. It's no different than what happens at any of the other meetings.

[1630]

And in terms of the length of time, I'm a little surprised that the member says that there's a large allocation of time. I'm not sure if that's always accurately reflected in terms of the length of the meeting, but from my recollection of the meeting, it might have been maybe 30 minutes. If the member says that it was longer, then my sense is that it didn't occupy the kind of time that might have been referred to in the schedule.

C. Clark: I'm asking the minister to be a little more definitive here. I would like the minister to tell us if he is aware -- and if in his role as an economic guru for this government he is aware -- of any restructuring or deregulation that the government is considering for the taxi industry and the issuance of taxi licences.

Hon. M. Sihota: There's nothing before Economic Council in that regard. Nothing has come to Economic Council in that regard, and as far as I know, nothing is forecast to come to Economic Council in that regard. I generally have an idea of the issues that are on the horizon for the Economic Council meetings. I haven't seen any reference to any matters relating to the taxi industry. I also, of course, have an opportunity to review the agenda of the Economic Council before we have the meeting, and I don't ever recall anything coming forward to the council with regard to the taxi industry.

I also serve -- I don't want to canvass a full range of issues with the member opposite -- on a range of other cabinet committees, and I don't recall, at any of the committees that I frequent -- and you probably have a record of which ones I frequent -- this issue of the taxi industry ever having come up. Now, that's not to say. . . . The only venue that I would think that it would have come up would be in cabinet, but those matters, of course, are covered by issues of cabinet confidentiality.

I hope that gives the member a complete answer.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us who was at the meeting? Can he recall who was at the meeting for the taxi industry study?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, no. Usually, my practice is to meet with people within the industry. I'll tell you that it was people within the industry. I can't remember all the names of the people that were there, nor do I think it's appropriate when ministers have meetings with individuals to disclose, as a

[ Page 12913 ]

C. Clark: I want the record to show why I think it's important that we know who was at the meeting. It's not just because the public needs to know -- or the public has to know -- everybody that every minister meets with. But the public has a right to know who the minister is meeting with -- particularly this minister, with his record with respect to the Motor Carrier Commission. If the public has a right and an interest in knowing about who any minister meets with, surely it's this one. And if there are questions with respect to the taxi industry, given Mr. McArthur's report and this minister's record with the Motor Carrier Commission, surely the public has an interest in knowing. The public wants to know -- and I want to know, quite frankly -- that the minister is not on the edge of getting himself in trouble again, that the minister is not on the edge of doing the kinds of things that Mr. McArthur commented on him doing. That's why we want to know.

[1635]

Hon. M. Sihota: Now, isn't this a fascinating debate? Here we are debating the estimates, and the member sort of hangs on to these high principles of "the public has a right to know who you meet with." I don't stand here and ask for the member's agenda to see who it is that she's meeting with, but she thinks it's appropriate for her, for the reasons that she subscribes to, to find out who I meet with. My recollection of the meeting is that I met with the executive of the association. I'm sure the member can easily determine who sits on the executive of the association.

Earlier on during the course of these estimates, I raised with the member my deep concern over the fact that her leader has gone around the province and said that he will fire government employees who are on the payroll, only because of their ties with the NDP. I pointed out during the course of that debate -- which I don't necessarily want to repeat -- how I found it offensive, in a free and democratic society, that members opposite would want to go through the civil service, search out people who hold NDP cards and fire them. I challenge the member opposite to name names, in terms of the names that they had compiled on a list. The member suggested that there was no list and that if they had names, they were not going to share them. Well, surely if she holds me to a standard of disclosure that is unprecedented, it seems to me that it is only appropriate for me to hold her to a standard of disclosure.

It has now come to my attention, since the time that we had that debate, that the Leader of the Opposition was quoted on April 1, 1999, as saying he's "compiling a list of people who have been given jobs because of their party affiliation rather than because of their credentials." These are the people that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to fire. I would encourage the member -- because I'm quite happy to disclose things to her -- to now stand up in this House and disclose the list. The Leader of the Opposition says that he's compiling a list of these people who belong to the NDP that they want to fire should they form government. I'll give you my list, hon. member. I've already told you: it's the members of the executive of that association. I'll actually go and ask them if it's permissible to give you their names. Now I want to know who is on this list. Who are the people that you want to fire?

Earlier on, the member opposite suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was perhaps not compiling a list. We now know that on CBC radio he said that he is compiling a list. Surely those civil servants that are the target of his cleansing campaign ought to know who they are. Obviously those people who are going to be fired by the Leader of the Opposition because of their political affiliation -- should he, heaven forbid, form government -- ought to know that they are the targets of his cleansing campaign. I'll give you my list, hon. member. I challenge you to disclose yours.

C. Clark: Well, we're back to old Joe McCarthy here. The minister stands here and wants to find out who's talking, who's telling, who's causing a problem. Well, I am not going to jeopardize those public servants who've come forward. The first thing this minister would do -- the first thing this government would do -- is fire them. That's the first thing they would do. We've got a Minister of Environment who stands up while this minister counsels. . . . While this minister -- who's been booted out of cabinet for abusing public servants, for harassing public servants -- offers advice to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, at the same time he's going to direct that member's constituents to the other member from Kamloops, who wanted to fire anybody who leaked any documents.

[1640]

You know, there are members. . . . Granted, even for this government, there are people that they can't even keep on the payroll. Look at Jack Munro. Look at big old Jack Munro, running the B.C. fast ferries board. Even this government thought he didn't know enough and had to fire him. Even they had to go through and say: "You know, here's a guy who's qualified for a lot of things, but building fast ferries isn't one of them." The first order of business for the new minister was to can him. It seems to me to be pretty obvious. Even this

[ Page 12914 ]

One of the things that the minister's comments demonstrate, when he talks about the access to information -- access to who's meeting with whom -- is the fact that he's a minister. The minister regularly misses the distinction here, and that's that as a minister he wields enormous power. When he takes a perk from a ski hill, for example, or when he goes out on a back-country ride that's funded by taxpayers, he won't tell us who's paying for it, and he wonders why people ask. He misses the essential point. And that point is that as a minister, he has the power to make million-dollar decisions -- and he questions whether people should have access to the information about who he's meeting with, about who's paying for his trips and about who's paying for his ski passes. He wonders if people should have the right to that information. Well, of course they should. The distinction here is that he is a minister, he wields enormous power, and he makes million-dollar decisions every day. That's the difference, and if the minister doesn't see that difference, it won't be long before he's back in the penalty box again.

One of the things that we've seen with this government is a reliance on contracts. That's one way that governments, in the past certainly -- and Judi Korbin raised this -- have gotten around some of the merit-hiring provisions and made sure that they got to reward some of their pals. You know, I got an email from somebody recently -- granted, it's anecdotal evidence -- who says: "You know, the government's again going back to its bad old ways of relying on contracts." He says that there are almost no bona fide contracts anymore. The managers are opting for personal service-style contracts to one specified person, with no specified task list and where the ministry supplies office space, computer and phone, and payment is based on time sheets. Just like the bad old days before Judi Korbin brought in her report. Just exactly the thing that this government said it was going to get rid of -- that this government said was so bad.

Well, will the minister tell us today. . . ? And before he gets up and asks, I'm not going to tell him who sent me the e-mail. This person doesn't want to get fired -- doesn't want to make it onto the government's blacklist. He shouldn't even bother asking, because I'm not going to put this person in jeopardy. But will he tell us if what this individual is alleging is correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: Now, the hon. member started off a few minutes ago full of disclosure-itis -- I think is probably the best way to call it. She wanted full disclosure of names. All I want to know is. . . . The Leader of the Opposition has publicly said that he's compiling a list of people who have been given jobs because of their party affiliation. He's been given a list of people who've been given. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I find this hard to believe. The member opposite gets up here all the time, asking me questions about things she's read in the Vancouver Sun. This is an actual quote from CBC radio: "He's compiling a list." I'll tell you. . . . It was on the news at 2 o'clock; it lasted for l minute and 20 seconds on April 1, 1999 -- right? The Leader of the Opposition says that he's "compiling a list of people who have been given jobs because of their party affiliation rather than because of their credentials."

An Hon. Member: Making a list. . . .

Hon. M. Sihota: Yeah, making a list and seeing who was naughty -- who joined the NDP. And he's going to fire them should the Liberals form office. That's reprehensible in 1999.

[1645]

It seems to always be fair in this chamber for the opposition to go on the offensive. But every once in a while -- when the government says: "Hey, members of the opposition, you think about what you're doing, compiling a list of people who are going to be fired because of their relationship with the NDP" -- the member goes into some circuitous argument that huffs and puffs and fogs and bogs and dodges and weaves and doesn't answer the question. She should answer the question. Why is it that she won't disclose the names that are on the list? That's the issue before the chamber right now. The member opposite will not disclose -- terrible to listen to.

Now, I don't want to know who sent the e-mail.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: No. She can't get her foot out of her mouth, somebody says. But you know. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Certainly if there are people who have. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: But you know, I don't think we should. . . . I'm not going to humour the seriousness of this -- the Leader of the Opposition standing up publicly and saying that he's compiling a list of people who have been given jobs because of their party affiliation and that he's going to fire those people. For him to do that is pretty serious stuff. Now that we know there's a list -- the Leader of the Opposition said it on radio -- I think the member opposite should insist that her leader disclose that list -- right?

More importantly, I think the public should reflect on what it means when a leader of a political party in 1999 openly

[ Page 12915 ]

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, it's great, isn't it? We know that you can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you? It's inappropriate, in my view, for him to be saying that. So the member can stand up and quote whatever she wants to -- take those shots at me -- but I think it's appropriate, if she's going to ask me to disclose things, to disclose that.

Now, if there are people who are getting contracts, and the contract is vacuous in its terms and its content, and if descriptions are not contained in terms of what they're expected to do, and if there are no accountability measures related to them, then that is a matter of concern for all members. Certainly it is a matter of concern for me.

Obviously the member's indicated that she doesn't want to share the e-mail with me; I understand that. But if she has a concern and she knows what ministry it is, she should definitely talk to the deputy involved and deal with it, quite frankly, because I would be concerned that it's occurring. Or, if she wishes, she can blank out the names, send it to me and give me some indication of at least the ministry involved, and we'll follow up on it.

C. Clark: You know, it's funny to hear this minister talk about this -- "Oh gee, it's terrible for members who are openly intimidating and harassing employees of the public service" -- when he's the only minister in the history of British Columbia that's been ejected from cabinet for precisely that reason, the only one who's been forced out of cabinet for harassing and intimidating employees of the government. He's standing up here and accusing everybody else of doing exactly the thing. . . . You know what? I suppose that if there's anybody who's an expert in knowing what that looks like, it's got to be this minister.

His first question, he says, to defend the fact that it's not happening, is: "Well, come forward. Tell us who those people are. Who were the leakers? Who is it that's saying these terrible things about this government?" Well, of course, they're not going to come forward when you've got a Minister of Environment that embarks on a witch-hunt every time a leak comes out of her ministry, a Minister of Environment that sends out e-mails saying that if anybody gets caught, they're in big trouble and at risk for their job. Of course, they'd be worried about coming forward to this minister.

[1650]

Hon. D. Lovick: My colleague the minister had to step out. Therefore he can't answer directly. But I shall certainly make sure that he is aware of the question that was posed.

Having sat here in the chamber for some while listening to this course of questioning, I'm dismayed that instead of talking about the administrative estimates of the ministry, we seem to be engaging in nothing more than personal attack. Obviously that has its place; obviously politics can be a rough-and-tumble kind of proposition. But to use something like an estimates debate -- which is clearly to further the public good so that people get a clear indication and comfort that their dollars are being wisely spent under the particular apportionments of the budget -- as nothing more than a platform to engage in personal insults seems to me, quite frankly, entirely inappropriate.

I know that the member is captivated by her own TV personality and persona. She loves to be recognized as feisty. She sees herself indeed as a kind of parliamentary version of "Xena: Warrior Princess." We recognize all that.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Lovick: You'll notice, however, members opposite, that when I do it, I do it in a smiling kind of way. I'm not suggesting that it has anything to do with a lack of integrity or commitment on her part. I'm merely suggesting a slight propensity on their part to enjoy the combat for its own sake rather than to deal with substantive issues. It seems to me that what ought to happen in parliament is that we ought to, in a word or phrase, grow up a little bit -- instead of the childish antics we see across the way.

C. Clark: Oh well, thank goodness the Minister of Labour doesn't want to engage in personal attacks. Thank goodness he's resisted that temptation so ably and admirably.

Now that the minister is back, perhaps the Minister of Labour wants to live up to his commitment and inform him of the question I just asked.

Hon. M. Sihota: In response to the question, it's my understanding that each ministry is responsible for monitoring contracts. There's no central agency that does that. So it would be the ministry that issued the contract that would have to monitor from an accountability point of view.

C. Clark: This was a very important issue identified by Judith Korbin, and I am astonished, quite frankly, that the ministry doesn't keep track of these contracts throughout government. It's astonishing. Has the government ever kept track of the contracts that are issued throughout the various ministries, in one central registry?

Hon. M. Sihota: Not in a formal registry. However, I should let the member know that in the gain-sharing process that I referred to earlier on in the provisions of the collective agreement, we are going through each one of these contracts and assessing the business case, for them to be issued as contracts -- as opposed to them being in-house, an activity that's through a direct employee of government. If the business case isn't there, my understanding is that those contracts are being pulled in. So in that sense there is a kind of registry developing.

C. Clark: Well, how did Judi Korbin get the information about how many contracts there are? Surely, if she devised a method by which the government could gather that information in one place, why hasn't the government continued to do that?

[ Page 12916 ]

[1655]

C. Clark: I just want to be crystal-clear on this. So the government has never ever, since the Korbin report, gathered information about contracts in one place. And it has never ever -- well, until attempting to today -- been in a position, since the Korbin commission reported, to be able to know how many contracts it's issuing on a year-to-year basis.

Hon. M. Sihota: We can ascertain the number of contracts that are being issued by asking each ministry for the number that they've issued, but there's no central registry. So in order to get the number, you have to go to each ministry individually.

C. Clark: My question is: do you do that?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, now that we're in the process of evaluating every one of these in the provisions of the collective agreement, we have to do that.

C. Clark: My other question is: have you ever done that before?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, there's never been a central registry -- only that each ministry has a record of their contracts on a ministry-by-ministry basis.

C. Clark: The reason I'm asking these questions is because I am, quite frankly, astonished that the government. . . . After the Korbin report identified these problems with contracts, the political level of the government made a really big deal about the way the previous government had allowed the number of contracts they were issuing to get out of control.

So Judi Korbin came in with her report, confirmed what the government was saying -- that there were too many contracts out there -- and then promptly forgot about it, apparently. She didn't make any attempt to keep track of how many contracts government is issuing on a broad basis. She had never taken that information in centrally in any way -- registry or not. She never took that information in in any manner, so that it could keep an ongoing tally of how many contracts were out there.

I am absolutely astonished that the government has never ever, until they were forced by their contract with the BCGEU, done that. The government has never recognized that that's been important and now, indeed, may not even recognize it as important. It's only doing it because it's being forced to by the provisions of the new collective agreement.

Hon. M. Sihota: Obviously I can't account for the totality of the time between the Korbin commission and today, but I'm still going to give you the best information that I have -- and therefore one stands to be corrected. It's my understanding that if you want to know the number of contracts that are issued globally throughout government, you can ascertain that number. You can't ascertain that number by making one call -- i.e., to a central listing group -- you can only do it by making 19 calls, I guess -- to every ministry in government.

Now, having said that, there has been discussion within government to have a central pool. But there have also been questions -- legitimate, I think -- about the usefulness of doing that. I'm interested in seeing what the member says about why she perceives that it's an essential feature. I'm most interested in hearing what she's got to say about that. But nonetheless, it's a logistic challenge to do it, and it may not be particularly useful if we can get the information individually from ministries -- and particularly now, in terms of provisions of the collective agreement.

[1700]

C. Clark: Well, I'm interested in finding out. . . . The government identified a need to control the number of contracts that government issued, and that was a long time ago. So what I'm trying to determine is how, over all these years until now, the government has been controlling the number of contracts that are issued -- because it appears, based on the information I have in front of me, that in fact the situation has gotten way out of control again.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I'd like to hear the information that you have that would cause you to believe that. In terms of the accountability portion of the question that the member asks, we have left it up to each ministry, through their executives, to account for the number of contracts and the reasons for those contracts. Obviously there's a general corporate directive flowing from the Korbin commission through the council of deputies in terms of issues relating to Korbin that were of concern at the time and, to some degree, remain of concern now. So the deputies are coloured with this knowledge. They are held accountable. Within every ministry there's usually an ADM responsible for financial control matters. Generally speaking, the accountability mechanism, in terms of growth or shrinkage, will be through that ADM.

C. Clark: Are there any limits placed on the ministries or any standards to which deputies and assistant deputies are held accountable with respect to the issuance of contracts?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, there are issues as they relate to. . . . I think that in a general way there are issues as it relates to the bona fideness, if there's such a word, of the. . . .

Hon. D. Lovick: Two words.

Hon. M. Sihota: Is it two? The member for Nanaimo would correct me on that.

[ Page 12917 ]

C. Clark: So how has the government managed to keep a cap on the total cost of contracts over the last seven years of the government?

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, the way it works is that each department that would issue these contracts is held accountable for the contracts they've issued. They work within the framework and, obviously, the concern and the comments that flowed out of the Korbin commission. In that sense, the accountability measure is with the issuer of the contract. Is there an abuse of the issuance of the contract?

I think that is sort of what underlies the member's concerns. Or has that been curtailed since the Korbin commission? I think my sense of it, just sort of watching it over the years, is that certainly since the Korbin commission there has been a far better accountability regime and far greater pressure on the system to justify the reasons for issuance of contracts.

C. Clark: My understanding from the minister -- and he will, I'm sure, correct me if I'm wrong -- is that there is no global cap for government or even a ministry-by-ministry cap for the total dollar amount of contracts that can be issued. Second, there is no mechanism by which we can ensure that each ministry, even internally, is meeting the standards set out by the Korbin commission for contracting. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: The member may be somewhat confused about what Korbin did and said. Korbin was concerned about contracts that were tantamount to an employee-employer relationship. She wasn't concerned about the number of contracts or whether government should be contracting -- okay? There's a significant difference in that regard. Quite frankly, I think the member should understand that I'm not sure that the system is well served by saying: "Well, look, you can't issue any more than X contracts." I think the system is better served by each department knowing what its budget is, and that in itself becomes a constraining mechanism.

[1705]

Hon. M. Sihota: The concern that the government had. . . . The member says: "Well, it wasn't Korbin's concern; it was the government's concern." Let's deal with that, because, again, I think the member may not have captured the subtlety of the point.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I mean that without criticism.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I do. Our concern was that there were -- there may be -- too many contracts out there that were indicative of an employee relationship. That was clearly the concern the union had as well. That's why Korbin. . . . That's why we've now evolved to the business case gain-sharing approach, which really is unique. I think it speaks volumes of the kind of relationship that we've tried to build with the union, which, quite frankly -- again from my observations in opposition -- just wasn't there in the past.

C. Clark: Will the minister give us a commitment today that the outcome of this information-gathering that the government, sort of very late in the game, has decided to take up is going to be made public, so that the public will be aware of the number of contracts that the government has entered into on its behalf and what the total costs of those contracts are?

Hon. M. Sihota: The reason for the delay is that I think we're somewhat unclear as to what the member is asking for. If the member is asking for contracts that amount to an employee relationship or that are indicative of an employee relationship, the answer, of course, would be yes.

C. Clark: What I'm asking is that the public have access to the government's decisions about the contracts -- when they collect this information from all the ministries and determine how many of them are bona fide contracts and how many of them are personal service contracts with no job descriptions, that the public has that information and knows the outcome of the government's investigation. I understand that that's what the government's trying to do with collecting this information -- to determine which. . . .

Maybe I'm confused about the purpose of this process. My understanding is that the government's embarking on this process so it can determine which contracts are bona fide contracts and which ones are personal-service-style contracts, which would certainly be more likely to fall under the manager-employee relationship. If that is the purpose -- if I'm correct that that's the purpose of the government's investigations -- all I'm asking is that the public have access to that information once they've collected it.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let's remember, we're only dealing with contracts that are bona fide contracts. They've kind of gone through that filter. If you're asking me, "Before that filter was reached, how many contracts were deemed not to be bona fide and therefore weren't issued?" I don't know if we can get that information. But if you're talking only in the context of those bona fide contracts and which ones of those we came to the conclusion were cheaper to have kept within government, employing the people in government as opposed to going outside, I think we might be able to provide you with that information.

[1710]

[ Page 12918 ]

It is a question of cost, obviously. But there are a whole bunch of other questions that go along with it, because every time the government issues a contract that defines, really, an employee-employer relationship, they also get around rules for merit hiring. They also get around a whole bunch of others of those rules that are defined in the act, because they're not covered by the same provisions of the act. So that's the other reason I'm concerned. Maybe now, having made that clear, the minister can give me an answer.

Hon. M. Sihota: To assist the member in her inquiry, we will give her the results of the review as we go through it, around those contracts that we're reviewing in the process. I think that should capture most of the contracts that she talks about.

I caution her. . . . To take one e-mail and sort of take the specific concern and generalize it -- I'm sure that's not particularly appropriate. But I understand what she's saying. To the degree that we can accommodate her, we'll endeavour to do so.

C. Clark: The government also has some very specific rules with respect to severance. Those rules, as the minister will know, don't apply to OIC appointments, necessarily, although the act allows that the regulations can apply for severance. Can the minister tell us how many. . . ? Well, first, let's start. . . . What are the government's guidelines for severance for the public service? What portion of OIC appointments meet those guidelines?

Hon. M. Sihota: We'll get you the guidelines. We don't have them here; otherwise, I'd make them available to you right now. I've asked staff to make sure that you get those guidelines. That's the first point.

The second point is simply this: they are based on, sort of, common-law principles. Age -- years of service, essentially -- is the driver. They do generally apply to OIC appointments as well.

C. Clark: Can the government give us some sort of picture about. . . ? The minister says that they generally do apply. What proportion of cases of OIC appointments do the standard rules and regulations for severance apply to?

Hon. M. Sihota: Any OIC appointments made under the Public Service Act are covered by these guidelines. So in that sense they're all covered. What would not be covered are Crown corporation agreements; they would be under a different format.

C. Clark: Can the minister advise us, then, how much the government paid out in severance last year?

Hon. M. Sihota: About $1 million.

C. Clark: Can the minister advise which Crown corporations ate up that severance?

Hon. M. Sihota: I can only give you the number within the public service. I don't have the number for Crown corporations.

C. Clark: When I read the act, it says that the government may. . . . People who are appointed by order-in-council may be governed by the regulations on severance, or they may not. That's my understanding of the act. People who are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can be subject to it, but it doesn't say that they must be. I'm taking from the minister's comments -- and I just hope he'll clarify this -- that every order-in-council appointment that's been made by this government, with the exception of Crowns, will be subject to the severance guidelines that are set out in the regulations.

[1715]

C. Clark: So, for example, did the severance for the former principal secretary to the Premier fall under the guidelines?

Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that it did.

C. Clark: Can the minister advise us of the amount of that severance?

Hon. M. Sihota: Actually, I'm advised that no severance has been paid.

C. Clark: Can the minister advise us of the amount of severance that's specified in that contract?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have that information, but, you know, I find it fascinating that the member would focus on Mr. Dix's contracts.

It wasn't so long ago that I was reading in the paper that the Leader of the Opposition was loath to disclose the contents of the contracts he was signing with staff for his office. In fact, it wasn't too long ago that I asked the Leader of the Opposition, through his chief of staff, to release the content of the contract for Mr. Falcon -- what the content was, and what the terms were, and how much he was paid. I think disclosure would require that. . .as well as some of the other people that have worked over time. . . .

I am quite happy to make further inquiries and advise the House of Mr. Dix's situation. I would, of course, ask the member opposite to see if her leader is now willing to disclose the content of the contract that I've asked for an explanation of, so we can all see, in public, what Mr. Falcon was hired for -- and some of the other people who were in and out of that office and have been let go over time -- and what the terms of severance were therein. I'm sure that they complied generally

[ Page 12919 ]

C. Clark: The minister knows full well that the Leader of the Opposition and the chief of staff for the Leader of the Opposition's office answered those questions fully and completely.

Now, I want to know. . . . This has been published in the newspaper. I know the minister doesn't like to trust the media -- maybe they don't say enough good things about him -- but the fact is that it's been in the newspaper that he's had a discussion on the phone with the chief of staff about this very issue, I understand -- or at least his staff have -- and he's well aware of the amount of that contract. But the minister, by standing up and trying to attack a small contract, is at the same time dodging the question of the severance that is due to be paid to the principal secretary to the Premier.

[1720]

He says that he just doesn't know. I find that hard to believe. He has no idea how much severance is due to Mr. Dix, who was forced to be a scapegoat for the Premier's latest scandal -- none at all. The minister tries to dodge the question by saying: "Well, I'm advised that it hasn't been paid out." In fact, he knows that the severance is due, but he's just trying to get around the question. It's quite legitimate to ask, and I think it's quite legitimate to expect that the minister would be apprised of how much severance is due to the former principal secretary to the Premier. My understanding is that it's substantial.

Could the minister at least advise us if his severance is within the guidelines? What is the maximum in the guidelines that can be paid out in severance to an OIC appointee, potentially, like Mr. Dix, for example, but not necessarily him -- anyone? If a government was crazy enough to sign on for the maximum severance under the guidelines, how much would that be?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know how much it would be. I said to the hon. member that I'd make the appropriate inquiries, and I didn't hear the member opposite say that she would. Let's be clear. In the case of Mr. Falcon. . . . By the way, that's not the only one we've got.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I haven't got the answer. I want the member to understand this, because I don't want her to leave this chamber in a confused state. So let's be clear here. Now, I asked for certain information related to Mr. Falcon in a letter dated March 1, and I have not yet received that letter.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I haven't seen it. So if the hon. member believes that I got a reply to that letter and my subsequent letter, which I believe was on April 8. . . . I have to check on the date, but it was thereabouts -- on or about April 8. I haven't seen a response to that either. Perhaps, as I am going back to try to secure the information that she's requested. . . . If indeed she believes that both of those letters have been answered, then I would ask her to kindly table those and also to answer, in the process, the other question I asked: why is it that the Leader of the Opposition has been loath to disclose the content of contracts executed with other people who have worked for the opposition caucus?

My understanding, when I first read it -- admittedly, it was in the paper -- is that the Leader of the Opposition has been reluctant to disclose that information. So I'll certainly go and do my work on the disclosure side and, of course, appropriately advise the member opposite of my results. I expect her to do the same, and I look forward to it.

C. Clark: The minister has the answers he's asked for, and he's had them for a long time. My question is -- and the minister has four officials here who he can consult and who presumably, I'm sure, know the answer to the question: how much is the maximum guideline for severance for OIC appointments as set out in the regulations?

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm advised that, presumably, the maximum that anybody could get would be within the 18-month range. That would sort of be what it would be. It's hard to fix it with precision, because you could have a 60-year-old with 30 years of experience, and under the regulations or under litigation, you might be faced with a different outcome. As I said earlier on, the common-law principles apply, but it's roughly 18 months. Now, having said that, that's the number; that's the best number I've got. If there's a finer number, if we can tune it down more precisely for the member, I'll be happy to provide her with that data.

I want the member to know I've not seen a reply to my letters.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: The member says she's not buying it. You know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've asked the Leader of the Opposition to provide me with that information. I haven't seen it. Others have asked him to provide other information with respect to contracts issued through the Leader of the Opposition's office. I would anticipate now that we will get the full cooperation of the hon. member, given her considerable clout in the ranks of the opposition, to make sure that that matter is attended to.

[1725]

Interjection.

C. Clark: And if he forgot about it, if he forgot that he got it, he can go look it up in the newspaper clippings, because it's public information.

Interjection.

C. Clark: Now it's public information.

My second question about the regulations is this: are OIC appointments held to the same. . . ? They must live within the

[ Page 12920 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: My understanding is that the eligibility criteria are the same.

C. Clark: That wasn't a very precise answer from the minister. I'm trying to determine whether an OIC appointment, who works for three months or six months, is eligible for the 18-month maximum severance payment.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, a three-month or a six-month employee would not normally be entitled to that level of severance.

C. Clark: "Would not normally be entitled" to it. Okay, I feel like we're getting somewhere. So what about a three-year employee? Would they be entitled to it at all, or just not normally entitled to it?

Hon. M. Sihota: They would get what a three-year employee at their age would get.

C. Clark: And that's all written up in each contract, obviously. Does the Minister Responsible for the Public Service have any idea of what the looming liabilities for severance are out there for OIC appointees?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know how one would quantify that. Presumably, you could take every contract, and you could assume that they were going to leave. You could assume that they were going to leave at the top end, and I guess you could come up with a looming-liability number. But it seems to me that that would be kind of a futile exercise.

C. Clark: Okay, well, we've established that the government doesn't have any idea how much severance they potentially will owe people.

One of the things about governments that's always scary when they turn over is that political hires -- people that are hired legitimately under order-in-council appointments to serve a political minister, to do a political job -- have, in other governments, written really sweet severance packages for themselves, and we've seen quite a bit of that in the Crown corporations with this government. And I think it's fair to ask -- fair for the public to try to determine -- what the liability will be for this government when it inevitably changes. When those OIC appointments necessarily go on to find other jobs, how much is it going to be? That's why I'm asking, and I don't think it's a futile exercise. I think it's legitimate to find out how much money is out there and whether the guidelines are being met by the government. It's certainly not an unreasonable question. The government has guidelines that may or may not be met; they don't know exactly what's being spent where. I suppose we'll have to wait and see, when the government changes, how much it's going to cost taxpayers for the government to change. The minister can't even tell us what the severances were for people who have already left, for goodness' sake.

I want to just very briefly touch on a couple more issues before we end for the evening -- that is, appeals and inquiries of the hiring process that are allowed under the act. How many appeals have been pursued in the last year, and how were they resolved?

[1730]

First of all, I'll state the obvious: there's not going to be a change in government. From that point of view, there's zero liability. I'm sure that the member anticipated that response, and she should know better. I know that she's out there, sort of looking at the new drapes that she may have in the ministerial office. But I know her predecessors did that as well, only to learn that they were stuck there, and I'm sure that will be the outcome again.

Secondly, the extent of a looming liability may well be related directly to the size of the list that the Leader of the Opposition is compiling. The Leader of the Opposition has said publicly that he's out there compiling a list of people who they're going to fire because of their party affiliation. If the member opposite wants to know the level of the exposure, then she should take a look at the list that the Leader of the Opposition is compiling -- the people that he wants to fire on the basis of political affiliation. While she's looking at that list, she should have the jam to table that list publicly so that all of us know (a) the extent of the liability and (b) who's on that list -- what the names are.

As I've said repeatedly today, it is unacceptable that a leader of a political party, in the year 1999, in a country that pays homage to individual rights, that respects the rights of people to affiliate politically and express their opinions freely. . . . It's unacceptable that he would be out there, as he said on April 1, compiling a list of the people that he's going to fire because of their party affiliation.

So the member, if she really wants to know what the extent of the liability is, just has to look -- what is it? -- one or two chairs to her left and ask the Leader of the Opposition who's on the list. I challenge her to do that. I challenge her to tell us, when we come back on Monday, what indeed is the extent of the liability, what is the quantification, how many names are on there and, of course, whose names are on there. If the member opposite wants to ask those kinds of questions, she dare not ask me, because I don't believe there's going to be a change in government. She'd better ask the Leader of the Opposition, who believes there's going to be a change in government and who's compiling a list of those naughty people within government, throughout the government, who have, in the words of the member opposite, infected the public service because of their political affiliation.

I am pleased to advise this House that in 1997-98 there were 123 competition appeals. Six appeals were settled without hearings, 64 were withdrawn, and 27 went to a full hearing, in which 13 were upheld and 14 were overturned. At the end of the fiscal year, 21 appeals were outstanding.

C. Clark: The minister has established that he doesn't want to just be minister for everything; he wants to be minister for life. The government's never going to change, and barring any unforeseen circumstances, any indiscretions on the part of the minister, he'll still be there 20 or 30 years from now. What a comfort that must be to British Columbians --

[ Page 12921 ]

But you know, in case the minister isn't minister for life -- in case that odd circumstance does arise -- let's talk about what will happen to the minister's staff, for example, at the political level. We saw this with the previous federal government. We saw this with the Mulroney government: substantial severance payments that were drawn up by political staff who automatically change when the government changes. They wrote up some very sweet deals for themselves, and I'm just curious if this government's employees are doing the same thing. Should the unforeseen happen and the government change, should the public get the opportunity to issue a verdict on this government and they don't return them with a huge majority, will we be looking at huge severance payments for the political staff of this government?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: As I just pointed out, the member tripped into the hole that she had dug for herself. You know, she's wondering about the level of liability. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition is compiling a list of people that he wants to fire; we know he won't share it. All she has to do. . . . She doesn't need to ask me; she just has to ask the Leader of the Opposition: who's on the list, how much are they paid, how many years have they been there, and what is the liability based on the standard formula that applies? Therein lies the answer.

[1735]

Now, I remember that. . . . She's right. When there was a change at the federal level between the Conservatives and to the Liberals, none other than David Anderson, of course, went to court to deal with, I think, some issues as they relate to severance. I can assure the hon. member there are no David Anderson-like contracts on our side. They fall within the grid that I referred to earlier on.

C. Clark: Let me quote for the minister: "For the sabotage, there's somebody causing a lot of grief to the government. We need to find out who they are and fire them!" The sabotage is originating. . . . This isn't a quote, but this individual is referring to sabotage originating from within the B.C. ferry system. This is a quote: "These are people who are sabotaging all the ministers, and we have to find out who they are." Oh boy -- sounds like a blacklist to me. Of course, the person who said this, said this on the eve of her husband's appointment to cabinet, someone who says that she's part of the political team, that she's joined the government -- and, of course, she's a travelling companion for the minister opposite. So can the minister give us, perhaps, his views about Ms. Tyabji Wilson's comments about going out, rooting out saboteurs within the government and firing them?

Hon. M. Sihota: You know, let's be clear about this. First of all, there is a world of difference between the spouse of a cabinet minister expressing an opinion and the Leader of the Opposition, who seeks to be the Premier of the province, making those kinds of comments -- a world of difference. Now the member may not think that that's a material distinction, but I tell you, to civil servants that's a material distinction.

I'm prepared to stand up in this House and say it's inappropriate even for spouses of ministers to speculate on any issues that relate to sort of ferreting out people on the basis of their political behaviour. I'm prepared to say that. I challenge the member opposite to do the same. Is it not inappropriate, in her eyes, for the Leader of the Opposition to go around and say that he will fire government employees who are on the payroll because of their ties with the NDP? That's wrong, and it's wrong for him to say that he's going to be searching high and low within the civil service to find out who these people are so that he can can them. It's wrong for him to stand up, publicly, and say that he's compiling a list of people who have been given jobs because of their party affiliations and that he's going to fire them.

There's also a world of difference between what Ms. Tyabji Wilson had to say, on the one hand, about her concern about leaks within government -- which I've already spoken to -- and the Leader of the Opposition going out and saying that he is compiling a list. Even the former member that the member criticizes isn't going around saying that she's compiling a list, that there's a list being built and in process. But the Leader of the Opposition is doing that, and he sits in this chamber.

Now, if the member opposite takes issue with the spouse of a minister for saying this. . . . If I can stand up in this chamber and say that I am discomforted by those comments, for all the reasons of principle that I outlined earlier on, why can the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain not stand up and say that she is uncomfortable and disappointed that her leader is out there compiling a list of people to fire on the basis of their political affiliation? Why can't she stand up, on a point of principle, and say that this offends the kinds of rights that all of us have fought for and supported in this chamber, and why can't she stand up and apologize on behalf of her leader? I just want to know: is there an apology forthcoming? I suspect that there is not. So let me hear from the member opposite.

[1740]

[ Page 12922 ]

It won't matter in a B.C. Liberal government who's a member of what party. The problem that this minister is missing is the fact that people in the civil service. . . . Their morale has been chipped away for years. This government, rather than looking at people's qualifications, is hiring people in some cases that don't merit the job, simply because they hold a party card. My complaint is that that is wrong. When you hire people to serve the public, and when the public is paying for them, they should be qualified to hold that job. They should be qualified by their experience, their references and their character. They should be qualified by a lot more things than what political party they belong to.

The minister quotes me, and he is quite correct. I say that this government has corrupted the public service with partisans. They have perverted the ends to which the public service should normally be working to meet the ends of this government. They have infected the public service with their partisans, and the people who have worked hard and diligently and proudly for many, many years -- who have worked as non-partisans and who got their jobs regardless of what political party they belonged to -- are having their morale beaten up every day. You can't get ahead in the B.C. public service the same way that you used to.

The minister's response to that complaint. . . . Rather than saying, "You know, the B.C. Liberals have kind of a good idea, and if there's a problem out there. . . ." What the minister should do is, first, recognize that if there's a problem out there, public servants are not going to come to him, put their jobs at risk and tell him that they think his political party is messing with the process. He should recognize that.

Second, he should recognize that there's a need for a merit-hiring commissioner in British Columbia -- someone who is independent of this Legislature, someone that public servants can trust to go to without putting their jobs at risk if merit hiring isn't occurring in the government. I don't know what the minister is so scared of. Every time we ask him to do that, he says no, he doesn't want to do it. He's convinced the system is working well because nobody's told him there's a problem. Well, the reason nobody's told him there's a problem is because they don't want to get fired. There is a problem. The minister should recognize it. And if he will recognize it. . . . Or even if he won't recognize it, what's he scared of? Why not? Why not have a merit-hiring commissioner in British Columbia -- someone who will be independent of the Legislature, someone that can make sure that the government is doing its job and someone who will act as a policeman in the sorry event that you end up with a crew like this in government that's just been around a little bit too long?

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I did not hear an apology, and I would have anticipated one. You know, all I heard. . . .

[1745]

C. Clark: What are you scared of?

Hon. M. Sihota: All I heard was the hon. member talking so much and digging an even bigger hole for herself to fall into -- dug, of course, with her own teeth.

Hon. Speaker, given the hour, I move that the committee rise and report substantial, material and informative progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. D. Lovick: With that, I would like to wish all members a restful, relaxing, enjoyable and safe weekend and thereby move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRIES
(continued)

M. de Jong: I think when we left off I had posed a singularly fantastic and insightful question that I know the minister wanted to respond to.

[1440]

I think we are committing to making sure that the processes will work for us and that there is as broad and as wide a consultation as possible, to make sure that all of the parties that are likely to be affected will have input into whatever decisions are taken at the table.

M. de Jong: One of the reasons I wanted to go through that exercise that we did this morning was to achieve a better understanding of how it is that the positions taken by provincial negotiators at the table are arrived at and how matters are on the table or off the table.

[ Page 12923 ]

In light of the reports and the incidents that took place south of the border, and the public notoriety that it attracted, if I misstate what I thought I saw reported. . . . This minister initially took the view that aboriginal whaling may or may not be an inherent right. I don't think I heard him profess an absolute opinion on the matter, but I think I heard him ask that question. Then we moved very quickly from there to statements that the Premier made, which seemed to be quite different.

The process that we have just been examining, it occurred to me, is very involved. We took two examples where the minister suggested that we might have something concrete by the fall. Yet on this issue, the mandate -- the position -- seems to have arisen much more quickly than that. So I'm curious to know whether this is a process that is applied universally across the board or if it is applied more selectively. If it is applied selectively, on what basis?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the issue of whaling is one that has relevance to really only one table, the Nuu-chah-nulth. I'm not aware of any other band who have actively pursued the issue, and even the Nuu-chah-nulth have not yet raised it at the table. They haven't brought it to the table, although I believe that they have identified the whole marine management aspect as something that they want to explore at the table.

Our position is that there has been no active whaling. The last active whaling station in British Columbia closed its doors in 1947. Commercially, there has been no aboriginal whaling, per se, for at least as many years. The reason for that is because the grey whale, which is the whale that is the subject of the Makah and potentially the Nuu-chah-nulth, was deemed to be an endangered species.

[1445]

Jurisdiction over marine mammals is federal. The province has no authority over marine mammals outside of treaty. Therefore we take the position that because. . . . Unlike the Inuit, who harvest as many as 130 belugas a year in the western Arctic and up to 300 belugas in the eastern Arctic. . . . I think they take somewhere in the neighbourhood of 160 narwhals annually in the Arctic, under terms that they have worked out with the federal government. There is therefore a bilateral agreement in place. No such agreement exists in British Columbia. Unlike the Inuit, there has been no continuance of that practice in B.C. Therefore we would take the position that if the Nuu-chah-nulth wish to prove an aboriginal right, they would have to do that somewhere outside of the treaty process.

That's the position we have said. Now, should they do that -- should they prove that -- then clearly we would have to deal with that as a matter of law.

M. de Jong: All right, maybe I can explore that for the moment. My initial understanding -- until I heard the words from the Premier -- from the minister's predecessor was that British Columbia was prepared to sit at a treaty negotiating table and consider submissions or negotiate around the issue of whaling. If it is the one group that has indicated an interest in doing that, that information is helpful. I think I heard the minister say that he is unaware of any other aboriginal group. If there are others, that information would be useful.

I then heard the Premier say something quite different. I thought I heard the Premier say that British Columbia would not be a party to a treaty or to treaty negotiations where the issue of aboriginal whaling was on the table. Now, I must confess that my interest in this relates to the substantive issue but also to the manner in which British Columbia comes to assume positions on these matters -- which, in this case, seems to have come about in a rather ad hoc manner somewhat inconsistent with the procedure that we have just been reviewing. Maybe that's an unfair comment, but it's certainly one that strikes me as flowing from what has taken place over the past number of weeks.

Hon. G. Wilson: Maybe what I should do, actually, just for the record -- at least for the Hansard record -- is read what the Premier actually said. This is from the Hansard of May 17, 1999. He says:

"I want to be clear. For the record, we've given instructions to our negotiating team that they are not to sign a treaty or an agreement-in-principle that contains provisions for whale hunting. Even though this area is a matter of federal jurisdiction, because the treaty process is a tripartite process and because the provincial government is at the table, we will not sign any agreement nor entertain any discussion about going back to the past and allowing any whale hunt in British Columbia by aboriginal people."

That is a position that the province would take to the table. Now, that does not preclude a first nations group from coming to the table and moving the matter. Neither does it preclude the federal government from bringing forward that proposition at the table. But it takes three parties to sign an agreement. So should that occur, under those particular discussions and with that mandate. . . . If that table was to advance on that issue, it would have to come back through this ministry to the cabinet. Cabinet would have to have a review of it and revise the mandate given to the negotiators at the Nuu-chah-nulth table. Through that revision, that process could proceed. On the other hand, if it was to proceed through a court of law, and they were to establish an aboriginal right, then that is something that would be outside of the purview of our discussions at the treaty table, because aboriginal rights would be established by law.

M. de Jong: Just with reference to this particular issue, then, can I ask the process by which British Columbia came to adopt this position which, from my perspective at least, appears to be something of a change from the position that the government had previously articulated? How is it that this rather hard-and-fast rule suddenly materialized?

[1450]

[ Page 12924 ]

M. de Jong: Well, it won't surprise the minister to know that from where I sit, that is a position -- however laudable or however much one agrees or disagrees -- that appears to have arisen or been created out of thin air. I guess that when we talk about the treaty process and we use the word "certainty," we are generally talking about the end product. But I think there is something to be said for establishing some certainty along the way in terms of negotiations.

If the Premier of the province is going to respond and short-circuit a process because it happens to be politically expedient to do so on any particular given day. . . . These are difficult issues. But maybe the answer the Premier should have given is that this is a matter that the ministry is going to be examining. We have a process by which we develop mandates of the sort that the minister has been describing through the morning: "Opposition, you'll just have to cool your heels while we properly think this through and provide you with a mandate that would be our position, which would be applicable if and when this issue arises with respect to negotiations."

I confess to being a bit troubled when, in the course of these negotiations, the Premier of the province has off-the-cuff policy pronouncements -- because I think that's what this was. I think the Premier did short-circuit a process that apparently is in place and, in the process of doing that, changed somewhat the government's position as articulated by this minister's predecessor. I don't know how you can avoid coming to that conclusion when you review how this has unfolded.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'll pass your thoughts along to the Premier. At the moment, it's somewhat of a moot point, because the issue hasn't been brought to the table. Until such time as it does, we're not even having to deal with it.

M. de Jong: But, then, do I understand correctly that there is a position, that the British Columbia government has a position today -- that is, it will not sign off on a treaty agreement that makes provision for any manner of aboriginal whaling? Is that an accurate summation of the government's position?

Hon. G. Wilson: The short answer to that is yes. It's consistent with the 1995 position taken by the government. It was opposed to the harvesting of whales, in the interests of conservation.

[1455]

I found it curious that this minister would speculate publicly. Again, I don't have any quotes, but I thought I heard the minister considering the possibility that this was an inherent right. So, having pursued him unsuccessfully through the Nisga'a debate on that question, I thought it curious that he would offer that manner of opinion on this issue in public.

Hon. G. Wilson: The Nuu-chah-nulth believe that it is an inherent right. My position is neutral on that question until such time as the Nuu-chah-nulth may seek to prove that.

There is no doubt that whaling is very much a part of the Nuu-chah-nulth history. There's a nice display on the Nuu-chah-nulth people that's going to be coming up shortly in the museum, and that will demonstrate that they have had, in the past, a very active participation in whaling. I don't think it's any secret to anybody. But that hasn't been uninterrupted, and I think that's an issue. That's unlike the Inuit, who have had uninterrupted access to whaling as aboriginal people in Canada. They are the only ones who have, to my knowledge, and therefore I think that is an issue.

So from our perspective, since it has not yet come before us at the table, we have indicated that that is an issue that we would not seek to sign off on. Obviously if it comes to the table, we'll have to address the matter at that time.

M. de Jong: Not to split hairs, but. . . . I think I understand the message the minister wants to convey, but if it is the government's position that it will not negotiate, at this point in the treaty process, the issue of an aboriginal whaling entitlement, surely the government can't say it's neutral on the issue. Surely the position must be that we reject, at this point, the notion that the Nuu-chah-nulth, for example, have an inherent right to whale. Surely it is one step beyond being neutral. It is a rejection, at this point, of that position.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, we certainly reject it as a treaty right. Whether it exists as an aboriginal right is something that they could prove in court.

M. de Jong: I think this will be the last point on this -- or the last issue. I wondered about. . . . And let's leave whaling aside, as an issue. I wonder about the problems that might result if the province finds itself in a position of litigation with a first nation where the issue of good-faith negotiations arises in the shadow of the kind of statement made by the Premier, where suddenly something is off the table -- apparently absent any due process. I think the minister may have some responses to that, and I'm not sure how long I can argue with him, given the context within which I've raised it. But it strikes me that there is that danger: that if the province starts to pick positions out of thin air, that argument of good-faith negotiations is ultimately going to be raised.

[1500]

[ Page 12925 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: That was an issue that was raised by the First Nations Summit, and it was an issue that was raised by some members of the Nuu-chah-nulth. I've had a chance to talk to Joe Mathias of the Summit to hear his concern on that. There was concern, I think, that the words of the Premier should not be interpreted as the government's position on extinguishment of a particular right. I've explained to him what our position is vis-à-vis negotiating treaty rights as opposed to aboriginal rights that may be established. I think he's comfortable enough with that now. I think the Nuu-chah-nulth are comfortable enough in that they know where the government's position will be as we come to sit at the table on this issue.

I think they have a fairly clear idea of where the federal government is -- or they tell me they do, although I confess I don't. They are obviously going to move ahead with what they believe to be their priority at the table. When we get to that point, we are obviously going to have to address it, but I think everybody is fairly clear. There is no allegation of bad faith at this point. I think there was some early speculation that this might in fact be an arbitrary, unilateral move to declare extinguishment of a right. I've explained that that's not what was intended, and I think they're comfortable enough to get on with the negotiations.

M. de Jong: But is it the government's position, then, that as one party to a tripartite negotiating exercise, it can take the position that as far as it is concerned, something is no longer on the table -- that an entitlement claimed by first nations simply not on the table, that it will not be a party to an agreement that includes that entitlement and that that would not violate the notion of good-faith negotiations?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah, that happens all the time. I mean, all three parties have issues that they simply won't discuss. The federal government and the provincial government won't discuss sovereignty. That's one issue. Uranium mining is another issue that is not on the table, because we won't discuss it. First nations won't discuss extinguishment language, because from their perspective, it's not on the table. All parties come forward with their positions.

One of the issues that I've. . . . Maybe I shouldn't go into this tangent, but it might explain a little bit as to where those kinds of directives may in fact run afoul of two competing interests at the table. It was surrounding the Nisga'a agreement, where the federal government had some insistence on the fisheries components that caused serious concerns for the province. So the conflict doesn't always necessarily have to exist between first nations and the two governments. It may in fact be between the two governments with respect to what they may see as competing jurisdictions or as issues that one side would rather not introduce and the other would.

[1505]

Hon. G. Wilson: On the example that's given, I would say no, because within the Treaty Commission process and within the principles established in negotiation, one of the key elements is on the governance side. So for us to say that we're not going to entertain any discussion on self-government, I think, would bring the negotiations to a halt.

Now, there are a variety of ways we can approach the governance question. There are different models that obviously are out there, because we've seen them and witnessed them. So there is some flexibility as to what we would agree to with respect to the governance provisions. But to simply say at this juncture -- having established the Treaty Commission process with its principles and having negotiated it already with other first nations -- that it's not on the table for one. . . . I think we would be on pretty thin ice.

M. de Jong: Is that the test, then? Is that where one should look for guidance as to where that flexibility exists for the government, in the minister's mind? Or is it more a product of the negotiations that have taken place across the province or at a particular table -- the dynamic at a particular table over time?

To take the rather dramatic example I raised a moment ago, one could take the position that we will talk about governance, but not within the context of the treaty itself. I'm not sure that it would satisfy the test that the minister has articulated earlier, or whether it would run afoul. I am, however, struggling to get a sense of the flexibility that exists, in the minister's mind, for his negotiators.

Hon. G. Wilson: I find myself at somewhat of a disadvantage. My colleague opposite is a skilled lawyer who knows more about precedents and the establishment of case law than I do.

But I think one would have to agree -- given the fact that the Treaty Commission has been mandated to go forward with a very public set of mandates, mandates that people are publicly aware of; that the courts have told us that there are certain aspects of first nations rights that need to be dealt with, and that we have a matter on title that needs to be dealt with -- that now, at this juncture, to turn around and say that we're going to pull self-government out of the discussion would constitute bad-faith bargaining.

I think they'd probably have a pretty sound case, because they can simply go back to what has transpired to this date. They can go to the courts. I think they'll find that they'd be on pretty firm ground.

M. de Jong: I think this is the last point on this. It goes back to the dangers inherent in developing policy on the fly. Government does have, in my view, a great deal of flexibility. I

[ Page 12926 ]

[1510]

Hon. G. Wilson: My deputy just brings to the attention of the critic for the official opposition that on our web site there are a number of examples where the framework agreements are set out. In each case, the framework agreement includes self-government provisions. We are not really positioned now to say that we're going to take that off the table.

I find myself agreeing with the member opposite that developing policy on the fly is not a good idea. We always have to be extremely mindful of the sensitivities that surround negotiations. We also have to make sure that inherent contradictions aren't established in taking positions on one item that is acceptable and on another that may not be. That is driven more by emotion than by a practical sense of the law and of issues that might better be dealt with in a more dispassionate discourse at the negotiating table. Having said that, maybe we can move on.

M. de Jong: In this case, I'm happy to oblige the minister.

Let me just turn briefly to an issue that I wasn't going to deal with, because I wasn't aware that it was going to be topical. But if you miss a day in Victoria, you risk missing a lot. I want to ask the minister about McLeod Lake, because there has been something happening.

Hon. G. Wilson: It's good news.

M. de Jong: The minister said: "It's good news." I don't know. When I read the Hansard Blues from yesterday, it seems that that good news was largely welcomed on all sides of the House. The minister's announcement doesn't appear to have been welcomed as readily by one of the partners to the negotiations, and that is the federal officials, who appear to have been taken somewhat by surprise -- I guess that's the best thing that can be said -- by the minister's announcement or ministerial statement yesterday.

The minister says that there is an agreement. Let me advise him of what I am told, after contact with some of the other parties. There is an agreement to suspend further litigation. That is a certainty; I think all parties agree on that. There is less agreement on the issue of whether there is an overall comprehensive agreement to the claim for adhesion. There are questions on the federal side, I am told, about an obligation to consult with other Treaty 8 signatories, and there are questions about ratification or approval on the part of the McLeod Lake band. Maybe the easiest way to do this is to give the minister an opportunity to explain or to enlighten us, beyond what he said in the House, as to what the true state of affairs is.

[1515]

It's our information from the federal government that there are no substantive issues that are outstanding with respect to this agreement. It is true that they have an obligation to consult with other Treaty 8 bands. They have had a considerable amount of time to do that, because this agreement is actually many weeks old now. I think maybe the comments that came from a press secretary to Ms. Stewart, the minister, perhaps suggested that they were a little bit upset that we decided -- having waited for a long period of time, having notified them several weeks in a row that we wanted to get this information out because it's a good news announcement -- that we wanted to fulfil precisely the same process as we did with Sechelt. And that's exactly what we're doing here. We hoped that they would join us; we hoped that they would come along with us; we hoped that they would have completed their consultation with Treaty 8. They essentially didn't get back to us. We said: "Well, we're going to go ahead anyway." If that has caused a few ruffled feathers in Ottawa because it doesn't meet their timetable, that's unfortunate.

I think I've made this very clear to the federal minister, and I think she's now witnessed it first hand. When I took over this position as minister, I suggested that we will move forward and resolve treaties; we're not going to drag our feet. We aren't going to play the game of allowing these negotiations to procrastinate over time, which costs everybody huge sums of money. We want the federal government to gear up, to get themselves into high gear and to keep up with what we're doing. And if it means having to give them a nudge now and again, that's what it means. I think maybe they reacted a little to the nudge they got yesterday.

M. de Jong: I'm not sure if the minister was suggesting that under his predecessors, there was a willingness to allow that procrastination, or if he was simply suggesting that he was going to be slightly more vigilant or aggressive in ensuring that there wasn't.

Maybe I can just ask this. The feds -- and I'm relying on the press reports more than anything -- hinted at breaches of protocol. I'm not sure if they meant that in the traditional sense or were referring to some MOU or protocol agreement that might exist between the three parties with respect to announcements of this sort. I should afford the minister an opportunity to respond on the record to suggestions that there has been some breach of a protocol arrangement with the other partners to these negotiations.

[ Page 12927 ]

All we are doing, and I think the members opposite would actually. . . . They should congratulate us for this. What we are saying is that we've now reached a point where we can suspend litigation. Here's the text of what we're going to go out and consult with people on. We're making it as public as we possibly can. We have done due diligence with respect to the financial implications that it has for the province of British Columbia, which I think actually works in our favour in this case. We would expect the federal government to do due diligence with respect to their obligations, both fiduciary as well as their committed obligations to Treaty 8 bands, but they've got to get on with it. They can't keep dragging their feet.

[1520]

Anyway, from our point of view, what we've done is said that we've got this agreement. Now there is to be broader consultation and explanation of the detail of the agreement. It's a good agreement for British Columbia. There is to be a signing later on. As the member opposite will know, there's the 100-year anniversary of the Treaty 8 bands coming up. The federal minister is anticipating coming out. She's cancelled the last couple of trips to B.C., which is most unfortunate. I wish she would stick to the timetable. There's not much more we can do, but we are not going to be delayed because of Ottawa's inaction on these issues.

M. de Jong: Well, let me just make this observation. I think the government and the minister will see a sensitivity on the part of the opposition and the pundits and observers to the issue of announcements. I think part of that, quite frankly -- and I don't mean to rehash this at length -- relates to the manner in which the Nisga'a announcements were made and this notion that when there is a political timetable at work, as determined by the Premier's Office, it will take precedence over everything else. Settling McLeod Lake is a good-news announcement. But unfortunately, I think that for some time to come, much of what this minister and this ministry do will be scrutinized with a view to what has taken place in the past and the lingering suspicion that events are being manipulated out of another office. I wish it weren't so, but I would be less than forthright if I didn't say to the minister that that is the suspicion that exists in many quarters.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, let me assure the member that in the case of McLeod Lake, there was no such interference from any other office except this one. We sat on that announcement for almost a month. I think it was a month -- maybe a little longer than a month. Having sat on that announcement for a month, it was pretty obvious that Ottawa just didn't seem to be getting in gear on this question. If there was to be a political message, I guess it's small-p in the sense that there is a significant amount of forest land in that region that has been held up. Access to timber was not available, and both first nations and non-first nations had been pressuring the government to allow this logging activity to get going so that people could get hired and back to work. We needed to get the message out to them that this was happening, because the industry, as well as the community-at-large and first nations, need to know that we are solving these issues.

I was just in Vancouver at the business summit meeting talking over lunch to senior members of industry and senior aboriginal leaders in British Columbia. We're together, we're talking, we're on the same page, and we're focused. For the first time, certainly since I've been observing this issue, we have, I think, a common interest and a common will to sit down, to settle these issues and to get British Columbia positioned so that we can secure the land base, we can secure our economy, and we can make sure that investments coming into our communities are going to be longstanding and without threat.

[1525]

M. de Jong: I wasn't here yesterday when my colleague from Richmond-Steveston and the member for Peace River South responded. I don't think they had the benefit of reviewing the agreement that the minister was announcing, and I just arrived back in Victoria this morning. Is that document available?

Hon. G. Wilson: My understanding is that it is up on our web site, but we will also make a copy available. I apologize for that.

M. de Jong: This is probably a question I should ask after having reviewed the agreement, but I'll ask it now, and then the minister can direct me either to the relevant provisions or to how the agreement might operate.

The comment was made that as an adhesion agreement, this document is silent on self-government -- Treaty 8. . . . Is the McLeod band in the post-Delgamuukw era now, and as a result of these negotiations, are they precluded from raising that as a separate issue in a separate context? Does this agreement address that? How does the agreement operate to deal with that issue?

Hon. G. Wilson: The self-government provisions are not available under the Treaty 8 process. However, the provincial government did offer to negotiate self-government provisions under the BCTC process. That is something that the McLeod Lake band didn't take us up on.

M. de Jong: Okay, fair enough. But where does that leave us? Is McLeod Lake then foreclosed from raising that issue through the courts? Is there language within this agreement that specifically refers to that?

Hon. G. Wilson: I should just correct that the offer was made to the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, not to McLeod Lake.

[ Page 12928 ]

M. de Jong: So we could see a forty-fourth table activated now within the B.C. Treaty Commission process, following the ratification of this agreement, to deal specifically with self-government. Presumably, the agreement finalizes any comprehensive land claim -- that is dealt with, with certainty.

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, on the land question, they are precluded. The agreement includes the cede, surrender and release language on that issue on land. But just to be very clear, the Treaty 8 bands did come into the Treaty Commission process and withdrew from the process. But they are not precluded from coming back now on the specific issue of governance.

[1530]

Hon. G. Wilson: That would be true of the eight bands that are in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: Maybe the obvious question is: has there been an indication from any of those eight bands, including McLeod Lake, of their desire to initiate those negotiations via the Treaty Commission process?

Hon. G. Wilson: My understanding, from my deputy, is that since withdrawing from the process, there has been no indication to us that they intend to come back into the Treaty Commission process. There is ongoing discussion with the federal government with respect to explanation of the treaty itself, but the eight bands are not precluded from approaching us at this point, if they should decide to do so.

M. de Jong: Help me with this: would it be necessary. . . ? Those self-government negotiations, presumably, could take place in an. . . . Well, I'm disagreeing with myself before I finish the sentence. It's possible that self-government discussions for the McLeod Lake band could take place bilaterally with Ottawa, I presume, although if there were provincial areas of jurisdiction that were to be involved, that would necessarily involve the province. Have I stated that correctly?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, that's correct.

M. de Jong: Then let's just deal specifically with McLeod Lake. Is there any reason to believe that the McLeod Lake band wouldn't seek some manner of self-government? Maybe the reverse of that is: have they indicated their intention to pursue the matter of self-government, either through the Treaty Commission process or bilaterally with the province and bilaterally with the federal government?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that there has been some expression of interest with the federal government to enter into bilateral discussions -- not going through the BCTC process -- and that Ottawa has taken the position that the BCTC process is the best process to discuss that. Obviously there are going to be areas of provincial jurisdiction that will have to apply. But those discussions really have not gone very far at all.

M. de Jong: What is the province's position with respect to McLeod Lake or any of the other bands captured by Treaty 8's provisions who would wish to engage in bilateral negotiations on the issue of self-government with the province of British Columbia?

[1535]

M. de Jong: Would I be thinking of this correctly if I were to characterize this agreement -- which I haven't read yet -- as being a classical land claim settlement and say that the issue of governance will in all likelihood arise at some point in the future and that therefore there will necessarily be ongoing negotiations with McLeod Lake?

Hon. G. Wilson: I have information that might put into context what we're dealing with. This is not, in the strictest sense, a comprehensive land claim settlement. What this is, essentially, is a resolution of their claim that Treaty 8 applied to them. Therefore their claim was that the adhesion to Treaty 8 should apply.

In terms of the governance questions, we have to keep in perspective that there's about 387 people we're talking about here. There are obviously going to be issues surrounding capacity and the willingness and desire to have all kinds of services. We're not talking about a group the size of the Nisga'a or Sechelt or others.

M. de Jong: I should know the answer to this. Are there other adhesion claimants with respect to Treaty 8 that the provincial government is aware of?

Hon. G. Wilson: No, there aren't.

M. de Jong: Well, I've forgotten my question. I'm going to turn it over to the member for Prince George-Omineca.

P. Nettleton: I have a few questions for the minister in and around what is a regional issue, I guess, first and foremost. It is an issue which is of a somewhat local nature, but it has implications for the whole of the province in terms of forestry-related issues. I'm sure that the minister knows or has a sense as to where I'm going in terms of the issue, having recently visited -- and I take my hat off to him for at least having visited -- the village of Tache. He met with first nations -- which is, if not a first, not something which occurs all that frequently -- and discussed an issue which is of concern not only to first nations but to forest-dependent communities within the Prince George region and certainly within Prince George-Omineca and the communities which I represent.

[ Page 12929 ]

[1540]

The minister became involved, as Minister -- newly appointed, I might add -- of Aboriginal Affairs, in an issue which was of concern to first nations and forest-dependent communities in the Prince George region and which has implications for the whole of the province with reference to forest-related issues, given that much of the province is under claim.

The minister may wish to elaborate in terms of his involvement, but in any event, the Carrier-Sekani tribal council rejected a comprehensive proposal from the minister to fast-track negotiations over forested land. The proposal was reviewed, I believe, by the leadership of the tribal council, including Mavis Erickson and others involved in the leadership. They put forward a counter-proposal with reference to the minister's initial proposal. The reaction, I know, from one of the local chiefs of the Nak'azdli, Chief Harold Prince. . . . Nak'azdli, of course, lies within the village of Fort St. James. His initial reaction was that this was a delaying tactic. I know that first nations have felt for many years that while the treaty process and land claims are ongoing, the logging trucks continue to roll through the town of Fort St. James and other forest-dependent communities. Meanwhile, the negotiations are protracted. In the view of Chief Harold Prince, they were delayed, and he saw this again as potentially, at least, another delaying tactic. Industry, meanwhile, is crying out for certainty.

I know that in reviewing the annual report of COFI, the umbrella organization for the forest industry, they again point to the necessity of interim measures so that there is some sense of certainty from the point of view of industry. This is a problem again, as I say, not only for first nations and the forest-dependent communities that find themselves located very close geographically to first nations and disputed territories, but to the province as a whole with reference to forestry. So perhaps, without saying anything further, the minister could or would comment with reference to his ongoing involvement in this issue -- a critical issue certainly for the region I represent.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm happy to bring the member up to speed on what's happening.

[1545]

There was some reaction to that from a couple of the CSTC chiefs. They talked about their concerns that this process was either going to back-door the forest plans that had been tabled or somehow delay the process -- so much so that we initiated another meeting with them here in Victoria. We sat down and, at that point, had Miles Richardson -- who is from the Treaty Commission, as the member knows -- here to mediate the discussion. In addition -- and I was delighted to see the addition -- we had Herb George, who is a well-known aboriginal leader in British Columbia, who's respected through his role in the AFN and so on, sit down and listen to what the province was saying and hear what the CSTC were saying so that we could work something out.

We gave assurances that our interest in this is to sit down at the table and work out a rational approach to dealing with a forest measures table. We could put the maps on the table so that they could see the maps. Now, the CSTC's argument -- and it's a legitimate argument -- was that they were not adequately consulted in the first round. That's true, and the industry's admitted that. I'll get to the industry side in just a second. The CSTC found the maps that were put on the wall highly offensive, because in the scale that they were presented, they did not remove those parcels of land that would not be subject to harvest. So those maps included. . . . The reserve lands were even mapped out as though they were areas where logging was going to take place. That was an oversight, and it's agreed by all parties that that was an oversight.

I've asked for the maps to demonstrate what percentage of the traditional territory would in fact be affected by logging cut plans in the first year, the second year and the third year. That information is now going to be put forward in this process, when and if this process gets going. I'm still very optimistic that we're going to actually get moving on it. The fact of the matter is that less than 1 percent of the traditional territory is affected by logging operations -- in the first year, anyway, and probably over the course of the next number of years.

The next step was to get the industry to meet with us. The Minister of Forests and I met with the industry representatives on Tuesday this week. We had a good meeting. We have addressed all of their concerns. I think the media was portray-

[ Page 12930 ]

All of the documentation and all of the letters that have been exchanged between the parties have been made public. What we have said is that we want the companies to file a one-year plan. That does not preclude them from putting out a five-year plan. But because there are at least two companies who are directly affected in the immediate short term, we need those one-year plans in place so that we do not unduly affect those two companies. They have a requirement, a need, to get in there and harvest right away. Even those cutting plans are not going to be detrimental or in some way problematic for the CSTC. But I don't think they believe that; I don't think they understand that yet. That's why we need this table to get active and get going.

They wanted clarification on some points from the Minister of Forests, and that was given to them. That didn't satisfy them. They now want me to clarify what the Minister of Forests meant. I'm in the process of doing that, and I'm hoping that we can get the parties sitting down at the table and coming up with an agreement on how we're going to proceed.

[1550]

Now, I don't want for a second to let the member believe that it's going to be smooth sailing, because it isn't. I think there is a capacity issue around whether or not the Carrier-Sekani are able to prepare to come to a table on an equal basis, and I've already acknowledged that. I think they're going to need some help there. We're offering some assistance, and I think the federal government has a large role to play in the provision of that assistance. I think that we also have a few more steps to take before we have actually established the level of trust that I think is going to be needed between all parties at the table as well, but we are moving in that direction. I'm pleased that we have been able to do that.

It's my plan to go back to the region soon -- hopefully sometime in mid-summer or late summer, depending on what happens in this building and how long we stay here. But I'll go back, and I'll meet with them again. We are in regular communication and contact. One of what I hope will be a hallmark of my term as minister is that I have been completely accessible to first nation leadership. They can pick up the phone and phone me if they need to, or they can write letters. If they need meetings, I'm happy to meet. If it means travelling to where they are, I'll do that -- within, obviously, my time availability. But I'll make time for that. It's a high priority. So I think we are building the trust levels there.

Now, I believe that the member opposite has a role to play here. To the extent that I haven't contacted you, I apologize for that. Actually, I think you have an active role to play in this process. It must be non-partisan in its approach; it can't be politically driven. It has to be genuine in its approach to try to get resolution on the land matter so that we can in fact build the security that's needed and improve the lot of both first nations people there as well as those others who are non-first nations and are currently unemployed.

The other problem you've got -- and it's thankfully out of my jurisdiction, to a degree -- is that there are a lot of municipal mayors who are not particularly happy about the situation. Thankfully, I don't have to deal with that.

So I'm happy to communicate on a regular basis. If you want to set up some system for us to do that, I'm happy to make sure that the member is kept properly informed. To the extent that you can help us on the ground up there, we would be anxious to get that assistance.

P. Nettleton: I appreciate your comments, and the information you've given me has been helpful to some extent. I would say, however, in reference to your comments with respect to the mayors, that there is in fact a problem which the minister does have to deal with in reference to the mayors in the communities. As I understand the position of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, they've taken the position that the proposed fast-track process to set aside forested land for treaty negotiations must be government to government. They do not want the communities to be involved, nor do they wish the community leaders to be involved in those negotiations. I don't know how the minister sees that, but I see that as a problem that falls within the responsibilities of the minister. How, then, is the minister prepared to deal with the position of the council, given their position with reference to the mayors in the communities that are impacted by this process?

Hon. G. Wilson: Frankly, I've met with the mayors -- all the mayors. When I said it wasn't my problem, it wasn't that I was suggesting I was going to walk away from it. I think the problem is the Prince George TSA and the extent to which, because there's been southern overcut, they're now moving up into the northern area, and there are so-called southern companies. . . . I mean, it's strange for me to have anybody talk about Prince George as being south, but I guess it is for many people. They're saying that people are coming up to harvest in areas where they want to see local fibre for local mills. That's an issue that the Minister of Forests is going to have to deal with, and that's what I was referring to when I said it wasn't my issue.

[1555]

P. Nettleton: Just for clarification, is it your position that representatives from communities such as Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and others should sit directly at the negotiating table with the council?

[ Page 12931 ]

P. Nettleton: You made some reference to Canfor and having met recently with some of the executives -- or one of the executives -- from Canadian Forest Products, which owns a number of mills in and around Prince George. It owns a large sawmill in Fort St. James, directly employing hundreds of people in the town of Fort St. James, and is a major player in that region. It's good to hear that in fact the minister has met or is meeting with a representative from Canfor.

One of the things, I know, that concerned me and continues to concern me -- and not only me but the people from that region -- is some of the comments that were made by Mr. Emerson, who is the CEO of Canfor, with reference to this ongoing process or difficulty with which the minister is involved. He made the comment. . . . To put it in context, Canfor has reinvested in a number of mills -- a fairly significant reinvestment. In Fort St. James, for example, I think there was a reinvestment somewhere in the range of $24,000 -- it may have even been in excess of that. But more recently -- in the past number of days, in fact -- Mr. Emerson made the comment that there would have been even more significant investment in that region were it not for this difficulty with reference to this problem with the council and the forest measures table and the allocation process and so forth.

So it casts into doubt the ability, I suppose, of Canadian Forest Products to invest or reinvest in this region as long as this issue is not resolved in some form that provides a major corporation such as Canadian Forest Products with the kind of certainty that they and their shareholders require. Perhaps the minister can shed some light on the concerns of, as I say, not only myself but the constituents I represent and that entire region, with reference to his discussions with Canadian Forest Products.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm happy to do that. In fact, it was David Emerson I met with. We had, I think, a very cordial meeting, a good meeting, and subsequently I've met with other representatives of his industry. He is absolutely correct in what he says. He said that they are in a position to and are prepared to make extended investments. Here's the industry concern, and I don't want to attribute all of this to Mr. Emerson, because that would be unfair.

The industry concern is. . . . I heard it again today at lunchtime, when all of the senior executives were sitting there with first nations. Here's their concern: that we've got a treaty process that by and large seems to be now moving along and moving fairly quickly. We've got an opportunity to sit down and work out a rational and fair settlement to treaties. Yet there are still those who are out there fighting against it, arguing against it, taking it to court, trying to do whatever they can to derail the process. In the process they are whipping up all kinds of hysteria in some cases in the interior communities, by suggesting that this treaty process is bad, that it's the institution of some third order of government, that somehow it's going to violate the constitutional authority and right. That happens all the time.

I can't help but note that the member's own political party, in taking Nisga'a to court, has extended the uncertainty in British Columbia and has caused a greater degree of uncertainty. It hasn't helped to solve the problem; it's exacerbated that problem. So when people are now wanting to invest, they're saying: "Well, even when you've got a treaty, you've got the official opposition, who tell us that they're going to be the next government in the province of British Columbia, willing to take it to court."

With all due respect, you've got the Aboriginal Affairs critic go into your own community in Prince George and get on the "Ben Meisner Show" and say that if he was in government, he would shut down the treaty process until he goes for some referendum on the matter. That's what stimulates uncertainty, member. That's what causes grief among the senior management people. They don't see it being concluded overnight, because it can't be. They see a process that's not moving along as quickly and as definitively as they would like. I'm with them on that -- 100 per cent with them on that. They see that the potential, whether it's slim or not, or great or not -- I don't want to comment on that. . . . If your party -- the party you represent, member -- should form government in the province of British Columbia, you would shut down the Treaty Commission process, stop the negotiations, advance the court action against the Nisga'a and destroy the one treaty that we actually have managed to put forward. They're saying: "Why should we invest in this province?" That's what's causing the uncertainty.

[1600]

The Chair: Before recognizing the next member, I'll remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

P. Nettleton: It's something of a stretch to suggest that opposition members are somehow responsible for the uncertainty around the whole question of land claims, treaties and specifically the issue that lies before us in the Prince George region. I would say to the minister: had his government -- that is, the government that he now is a part of, a very significant and important part of; he may, I suppose, someday even be leader of that party and perhaps government -- dealt with the whole question of interim measures with reference to forestry in a timely fashion, this problem would not be confronting us -- that is, the native and non-native communities which I happen to represent.

There has been some -- and I'll give the minister some opportunity to respond -- reference by the minister to the

[ Page 12932 ]

[1605]

"The latest example of the provincial government's failure to make good use of consultative bodies was Gordon Wilson's decision to augment the interim measures agreement with the Carrier-Sekani tribal council. The poop hit the fan last Wednesday evening at the Northern Interior regional advisory committee, when members were outraged that the Aboriginal Affairs minister, without prior consultation, moved to limit forestry licensees to one-year agreements -- something that complicates and jeopardizes existing agreements with numerous forest companies.

"Aside from increasing investment risk and the subsequent economic implications, Wilson's move violates the process of consultation. What is the purpose of such councils and committees if the provincial government uses them only as window dressing? One cannot pretend to serve the public interest if one does not listen first to what the public interest is. Wilson defends his move by claiming that there is a great need to fast-track the treaty process, but the victims in all of this will be the communities whose interests he claims to serve."

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

Finally he makes the comment:

"What's the rush? From closure to interim measures, Wilson now appears as a man in a hurry, dodging consultation. Perhaps he is pursuing his own agenda."

Hon. G. Wilson: I learned very early in my life as an elected politician not to make comment on the ramblings of various. . . . I was going to say journalists, but they're not exactly journalists. They're columnists -- right? -- or opinion writers. So I'm not going to make comment on that, except to address the one issue of the outrage of the RAC.

I don't believe that certainly is the case. I think there is a bit of mischief-making there. I think there are people who are concerned about what the process was going to be. They were concerned about how the consultation was going to work and what their role was going to be in fitting into that, given that we were setting up a new table. Those have been addressed; they've been dealt with.

We are broadly, widely consulting with everybody. I've met with all of the industry leaders or their representatives; I have met with all of the first nations who are involved; I've met with the municipalities that are involved. In terms of the local advisory committees, they have been well briefed and have been given all kinds of information on what is proceeding.

Let me just leave it at that. I'm not sure how big a fan Mr. Young is of the Treaty Commission process in the first place. I mean, I don't know who he is. I generally don't comment on the musings of opinion writers in the paper.

P. Nettleton: I'd just say, finally, that the concerns expressed by Mr. Young express. . . . In my experience around this issue, talking with people from the region. . . . In fact, they have some huge concerns not only with reference to the issues that confront first nations and non-first nations and industry but with the involvement of the newly minted minister, who is responsible for the fast ferries as well as for aboriginal affairs. Even the fact that he has been given these two hot portfolios suggests to some folks that it is not given the attention that it should be -- that is, the whole question of land claims and the issues around forestry-related issues. Certainly I can tell the minister that this is an issue that has to be addressed. It has implications, as I say, not only for the residents of the Prince George region but for the province as a whole. I trust that this will in fact be addressed in a timely fashion.

[1610]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm tempted, but I'm not going to jump into too much of a debate on whether or not. . . .

An Hon. Member: Oh, yield to temptation.

Hon. G. Wilson: No, I'm not going to do that. To suggest that because we're having to deal with the B.C. Ferry Corporation somehow means that I'm not paying attention to the treaty process is. . . . Maybe it's perhaps because the member opposite isn't quite aware of how far we have come in such a short period. We have 15 tables mandated. We're going to have at least two, possibly three, AIPs in the next number of months, and certainly we'll have a treaty with the Sechelt within a very short period of time. We have opportunities now with the Okanagan nation which we never had before, and we're discussing it.

P. Nettleton: All the more reason that you should be devoting all of your time and energy to dealing with that issue.

Hon. G. Wilson: Let me tell you that we have made enormous advances. Now, in his own community, Mayor Colin Kinsley has just made this Treaty Awareness Month. I don't know if the member's aware of that. I don't know if the member's aware that the chair of his RAC and the chair of his TAC have both written letters fully in support of this process, fully in support of what we're doing up there -- 100 percent behind what we're doing.

I just came from a meeting today at lunchtime. . . . I left here having had the very incisive and intelligent questions coming to me from the member opposite there before lunch. I flew over to Vancouver to meet with the Business at the Summit lunch so that we could have the senior executives of the major corporations and the senior leadership. . . . I'll tell you, the dynamic there is positive -- positive, strong and progressive towards resolutions.

We are making enormous progress, member. You don't have to worry, because the B.C. Ferry Corporation -- as I pointed out last night when we concluded those estimates -- is coming into a sound fiscal position. We are going to be able to devote as much time as necessary to make sure these treaties are resolved in a final way.

[ Page 12933 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: If the member finds that difficult to believe, I would simply say: just stay tuned.

R. Thorpe: I see the hon. member is still attached to that word "progressive." Maybe they're going to change the "p" in the party; I don't know.

I'm just wondering if he could expand upon the progress and the positiveness with the Okanagan nation that he just talked about, and what that includes.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'd be happy to. We had a meeting with the Okanagan nations. All the chiefs came together. It was an excellent meeting, and it was facilitated by the Westbank Indian band. I've committed to meeting with them on a monthly basis. They have a list of issues that they believe need some resolution, primarily highway access issues but also dealing with Kokanee trout. They have a bunch of other issues with respect to water management issues, water licensing. They had a number of issues that dealt with what really are federal jurisdictions around portions of reserve land, but I'm going to work with the federal government to get them involved.

The Okanagan nation -- the Osoyoos band in particular -- also have some development opportunities that they're looking at there that they want to make sure are advanced. For the first time, we're really sitting down and talking about ways in which we can start to facilitate capacity-building so that there's an opportunity for us to get into meaningful discussions -- recognizing that they are not part of the Treaty Commission process -- around how we can start to reasonably accommodate the expectations of the Okanagan nation.

Excellent meetings. We don't agree on all issues. I don't want to say it was a panacea; it wasn't. We have the Westbank now, who are prepared to come back to the table and to advance. There are some rocks in the road around their bilateral discussion on self-government with the federal government. Chief Derrickson and I will be talking about that again tomorrow. But generally speaking, I think that it was a positive relationship. They asked if they could have access to the minister. I suggested that we have monthly meetings. I think they were impressed that that was offered, and they've accepted it. I intend to deliver on a lot of the issues that they have outstanding. There's a number of issues that have been outstanding for many, many months -- in some cases, years -- where I think a little bit of due diligence can bring resolution.

R. Thorpe: In that regard, let me ask. . . . In some comments that the minister stated earlier to the member from Prince George about certainty and access to land. . . . Did the road to the airport come up in your discussions with the Okanagan Nation. . . ?

[1615]

Hon. G. Wilson: No, that was not specifically discussed with. . . . It would be the Penticton band.

R. Thorpe: So was the Penticton band represented at that meeting?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes. Chief Phillip was there.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure the minister. . . . I shouldn't be sure. Perhaps the minister is aware that we've had some difficulty and had one blockage on the access to our airport by the Penticton band. I would like to know what responsibility and what actions this minister and this ministry will take to ensure that that road is open to the public so that they have access to the Penticton Regional Airport.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, with respect to the matter on the airport, that, I think the member would recognize, is a federal issue with federal jurisdiction, although we are certainly keeping a very close eye on it, and we're assisting where we can. It's our view that the road is a public road, and it's our position that it remain open.

R. Thorpe: I'm sure that the minister is aware that there is a Ministry of Forests firefighting base that has to access that road and that the water bombers need access to get to their jobs. But if the minister could be just a little bit more specific in detailing. . . .

The road has been closed once already. What actions will your ministry take to ensure that the access to that road is not put in jeopardy and that it's open for the travelling public? I ask you this for this reason: as you know, because you have some knowledge of the south Okanagan, the economy is extremely fragile at this point in time; tourism is a major factor not only in our ongoing businesses but in our future development -- and for many of the aboriginal peoples that you talked about earlier.

So it's critical for ongoing economic viability that it remain open -- but most importantly, too, for future development. I would like to know how committed. . . ? And what actions, specifically, would this government and this minister take, and would he actually bring it up at his next meeting with the nation?

Hon. G. Wilson: I was just asking whether or not the agenda for the next meeting is finalized, and the answer is no, not yet. So we'll put it on. I will raise it. At the moment, we have had no advanced information to suggest that there is any planned disruption in the road, but I can tell you that the province's position is that that is a public road for public access, and it must be open to the public.

M. de Jong: I want to turn the discussion now to the B.C. Treaty Commission, if I could. There are, broadly speaking, two areas that I want to explore. The minister, a few moments ago, in his exchange with the member for Prince George-Omineca, referenced a threat to the Treaty Commission process. He has a different view than I about where that threat may lie and who may be responsible for it. I won't take the committee's time, at this point at least, debating that issue with him, but the minister has probably seen a document -- or would have a document -- that the B.C. Treaty Commission itself authored. It's an interim report called "Strengthening First Nations for Treaty Purposes." It's a January 5, 1999, document, a copy of which I notice went to the government; I presume, therefore, that the minister is somewhat familiar with the document.

[1620]

[ Page 12934 ]

I'll take a bit of time to go through this, because I do want to test some of the propositions that the Treaty Commission has come up with, and seek the government's response to some of the conclusions it draws and some of the observations it makes. If I can begin by drawing the minister's attention to the observation that the authors of this interim report make about the limited discretion afforded to the Treaty Commission to return a statement of intent, I guess that's. . . . When I read the document, what I interpreted out of that was a limited ability on the part of the Treaty Commission to determine who's going to be involved and what the threshold test is for initiating a table.

This report observes that there are, I think, 43 tables involving 51 first nations. The report comments upon the definition of what a first nation must be, and I'll read it into the record, from the BCTC agreement: "An aboriginal governing body, however organised and established by aboriginal people within their traditional territory in British Columbia, which has been mandated by its constituents to enter into treaty negotiations on their behalf with British Columbia and Canada." It describes that definition as being generally permissive and says: "The cumulative effect of this approach in definition is that the Treaty Commission has limited discretion to return a statement of intent and to actively encourage nation-building."

The upshot of that, from my reading of the report, is that there is an expression of concern on the part of the Treaty Commission itself that we've got organizations or we have bands or we have groups of aboriginal peoples who have come together to file a statement of intent that the Treaty Commission, practically speaking, would like to be in a position to return, but finds that its discretionary authority to do so doesn't allow for that.

I'm not passing any judgment on the Treaty Commission for making that observation, but I think that that is a significant statement to be coming from what we all describe as the keeper of process. It suggests that at the heart of the process, there are some real problems. I think it does warrant a response from the minister who represents one of the three parties to that discussion.

[1625]

To really put it into perspective, we have to go back a few steps to recognize that in the bilateral process with the federal government, there was, in effect, a requirement for first nations to prove that they were the rightful negotiators of this process, or that they were the rightful representatives, and so on. They had to come up with evidentiary information and documentation that would prove that. That was a very lengthy and unsatisfactory process -- one that didn't include the province -- and it was very much a bilateral agreement.

When we came to the Treaty Commission process, it was felt that rather than work under that kind of a directive -- which was going to be unwieldy, long and expensive -- we would go to a voluntary process. We would, through the voluntary process, develop an opportunity for people to move toward a position of negotiation representing a "constituency." The concern that arises is around what that constituency is and whether the first nation is one of a number of tribal communities who together come under one tribal council. Is it all or several of those tribal councils? Do we enter into negotiations and treaties with smaller units, or do we try to do it on larger regional perspectives? Who represents the first nation? That's where this concern starts to become problematic.

From the government's perspective, we're far less able -- I think that is the word; I'm trying to choose my words very carefully here, because this is an extremely sensitive and very thorny issue -- to sit down and get into meaningful discussion with respect to self-government provisions, treaties and land claims when we're dealing with people who are so small a number because they happen to represent. . . . I don't know if I should mention names of bands, but maybe I will. They're in my area, and I'll hear from them anyway, whether I do or not. If you deal with a group like the Klahoose, as an example, you take a look at a very small number of people who are therefore looking at a huge land area that they wish to select, and yet there is a very small number of people.

We've already said within the principles that when the treaty process is complete, the total land area held by first nations will be proportional to their population. You get to the point where you say: "Well, if there's a very small group who want to negotiate on their own, but they want this huge land base, and they want to get into the same provisions of self-government as a group who represent 1,500 or 2,000 or 2,500 people, how do we deal with that issue?" We get into this argument -- or discussion, I guess, is a better word -- about what constitutes a first nation. I think that's what is being referenced here.

The province has taken the position -- and I'm hoping that we can get the Treaty Commission to move forward in this direction -- that we are better positioned to deal with a larger group, be it through a definition of first nation which includes a comprehensive group of people within the tribal council; or whether it's through a larger treaty alliance, such as in the Vancouver Island area, where we're now trying to get a larger treaty alliance together, to start to negotiate at least the terms of the broad umbrella issues of treaties so that we can start to put in place a single set of negotiations rather than having to deal with each of these individual groups.

Now, there is not consensus around that by any stretch of the imagination. So that really is the nub of what is being discussed here, and we are actively grappling with that question. I think we're coming to some good conclusions, but we're not getting there quite as fast as any of us would like.

[1630]

[ Page 12935 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: There is no sort of sliding scale of population that says that if you fall under this number, then this happens, and if you get over that number, that happens. But it's been made very clear at the table to those small bands that the range of services that would be negotiated and provided for them is going to be comparable to the size of that population, and I think there are some logistical reasons for that. I think the province is responsible for that.

To this date we haven't really hit a wall on that question. We may at some point, and we're going to have to resolve those issues. But I do think the comparison that is looked at is at a comparable regional district or a comparable entity -- I suppose you'd say unincorporated area -- that might have a small population that would be comparable to the size of that band. That's what we've been doing at the table; we've been saying, "Look, you have to recognize. . . ." I'll go back to the example of Klahoose. That would be in my own riding, where we're having enormous progress with the Sliammon and other bands. This is not moving ahead as I'd like to see it, partly because their expectations are huge in terms of the amount of land that they're asking for in relation to an extremely small group -- many of whom actually don't even live within their traditional territory; they live in Sliammon. That becomes a real problem, and there is no quick or easy solution to it.

M. de Jong: On that point then: is there some value to be derived, for the benefit of the public -- and we'll talk later about the education process -- in presenting a table that without binding the hands of government at the negotiating table, sets out what might logically follow in terms of governance for a band of 500 versus a band of 1,000 or a band of 2,000?

The minister draws the analogy with municipalities versus unincorporated entities. A municipality. . . . Once that threshold has been met, they generally have the benefit of all those jurisdictional powers that are provided for under the Municipal Act. It seems to me -- as the Treaty Commission's speculation is not an illogical one -- that maybe without binding the hand of government it is worth presenting that kind of document that says we've got to be realistic about what's on the table if you're a band of 300, versus a nation of 3,000.

[1635]

The other thing that one also has to look at is the whole question of population, in terms of their geography in relation to other first nations bands and what their history is in relation to other first nations. There is a combination effect that starts to occur as you get tables advancing, where in fact it might be deemed that two groups could better negotiate a set of conditions that would take them up to everything except the full extension of services, until the full tribal council comes into play. I'm thinking of the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, where they are going to. . . . They both have come, because there's a mutual benefit to moving ahead. We're very well advanced on that table. At some point, there will be an expansion of services, when we finalize on the larger issues.

While it may seem on the surface to be a simple solution, in fact, if anything, it might send the wrong signal if we did that. It might suggest that because there is a group of progressives who are out there who want to get active on a whole bunch of things, we wouldn't entertain discussions until they were able to come together in a large population base.

M. de Jong: All right. My sense, again going back to the Treaty Commission interim report, is that there were two issues uppermost in the author's mind. One was the desirability of finding a means by which we could accelerate the process, a fast track -- call it what you will -- a mechanism by which you can consolidate some of the tables along the lines that the minister was alluding to. I don't really have any hesitation in suggesting and acknowledging that I think that's a good thing. To the extent that we can do that and enhance the efficiency of the exercise, surely everyone would agree that that is a laudable objective.

The other issue, I think, that the Treaty Commission is grappling with is the notion of legal representation of individual aboriginal peoples. The difficulty, or the dilemma, that one faces, it seems, is that the larger the negotiating body -- the larger the body that is at the table -- the more likelihood you have of dealing with disaffected minorities. So if we found a mechanism by which to encourage that consolidation -- and I will ultimately be interested to hear the minister's views on how that might be achieved -- you would also run the risk in so doing of a disgruntled minority arising and saying: "Hey, they don't represent me, and I'm not going to let them release me from the claims that I believe I have as an individual member of a particular tribal nation."

[1640]

I should say, to have it on the record as well, that I don't know to what extent the Treaty Commission was speaking on behalf of the First Nations Summit, for example, or the government of British Columbia, when it expressed surprise at the number of tables. I think their figures in this report are 51 first nations accounting for 70 percent of the aboriginal population in B.C., whereas the hope and expectation was that there would be 30 tables representing 100 percent of the aboriginal population. The Treaty Commission indicates that that came as a surprise. I don't know if that was the sense the government had. I mean, we have a large proportion of the aboriginal population, as the minister points out, not even involved in this Treaty Commission process, so we've still got

[ Page 12936 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I was just getting a bit of background on this issue over the last number of years, because this is an issue that isn't new and that we are making some headway with. The province has always taken the position. . . . Well, let me back up. Since 1995 the province has taken the position that we should move toward a larger aggregate group in terms of negotiation -- that it's better to be dealing with a larger entity rather than a smaller. That, apparently, was not acceptable at that time to first nations or to the federal government. Over a number of years, we have seen the federal government and the first nations come around a bit. The province is now working with us, and we are working to find a way to move the process forward.

I personally don't like the term "fast-tracking," and I don't use it -- at least, I don't consciously use it. Fast-tracking implies that somehow you're doing an end run around process, or that if you're on a fast track, it's because you're not doing due diligence.

K. Krueger: It sounds too much like "fast cat" too.

[1645]

I don't like the term "fast-track." It also doesn't fully describe what we're attempting to do. The fact is that some groups who are small in number do not have the capacity to move forward on some fronts, but they do have the capacity and the desire to move forward on other fronts. So through what I call an "expedited process" -- which I think is a better description -- we are now able to recognize that there will be a variety of opportunities for tables to work in parallel, where some will advance on some fronts and others on others. As they start to develop capacity they'll be able to have a broader expanse of services provided. We can negotiate that provision in the treaty without them having to access them immediately.

It's not dissimilar from the difficulty with small municipalities, which the members opposite may be aware of. Certainly I, as an elected member at the municipal level. . . . If you have a relatively small and dispersed population, you have a relatively unstable tax base, and you have a relatively low level of capacity to be able to do things you need to do. That is no different. On the other hand, if you're hit with a second problem where not only do you have a small population with limited economic capacity, but you have a relatively low level of education, low level of skilled labour and low level of opportunity, that becomes even more problematic.

The last issue that the member raised -- which I think is important -- deals with the issue of minority groups who believe: "Well, you don't represent me, so we're not going to participate in that process." That's a fact that we deal with, and that's true. But that's true of most governance models where there are people who purport to represent others. The members opposite will be shocked and surprised -- as I am every day -- when I bump into people out there who don't think that I as a member of this government represent them. I'm shocked and astounded at that. The members opposite will share that shock, I'm sure. People do say from time to time: "You don't represent my interests." What we have to try to do is establish a process -- notwithstanding whether they like what the representation is -- that there is a general acceptance that the group we're sitting and negotiating with is in fact a representative of the people who will be affected. The Treaty Commission has gone a long way to assisting in making sure that those processes are in place.

M. de Jong: If we agree that there is a benefit to be gained through the process of consolidation, then I guess the question that flows from that is: how do you move towards achieving that goal? I think there were attempts last year to do that. The select standing committee made recommendations to move toward provincewide negotiations in a limited number of instances where issues lent themselves to that kind of discussion -- language issues that could be of general application across the tables. The federal position on this particular point has always puzzled me, given the approach they took in the Yukon, where they purposely sought an umbrella-type agreement and then had subsequent negotiations within that umbrella agreement. I think I heard the minister say that the feds are moving off that position, or have moved off of that position. If that's the case, I think that is a good thing.

Is there an opportunity. . . ? It seems to me that if you want to move a group in a particular direction, there must be either an incentive to move in that direction or a disincentive not to. I don't know if that is a function of the resources -- which means people and money -- that we devote to particular tables, and prioritizing on that basis. . . . That can be, for some, a cold and unfair method. I make, I guess, this obvious statement, which the minister doesn't need to hear from the opposition: government has finite resources.

[1650]

Hon. G. Wilson: I was just trying to get some hard examples for the member, because he is quite correct. The way to do it is through incentive, and the incentive is on a resource-allocation basis. As the member correctly points out, we have limited resources, so we have to focus those resources where we will make progress.

Let me give you a few examples. The northern regional table, for example, four bands. . . . The truth is. . . . When the member says, "How do you move to this position?" the answer is: slowly. And you can't impose it. You have to have the groups voluntarily come on board, but you can move them along with some incentives. At the northern regional table, where there are four bands, the offer was simple: "We can meet with each of you once every four months, or we can meet with all four of you once a month. And if you want to come together and work on these common goals once a month, let's do it that way." That's been very successful.

On the treaty alliance which deals with Vancouver Island, we've indicated that we can have our meetings at individual tables infrequently over the next number of months, or the treaty alliance can come together and we can put some senior negotiators there, some serious resources there, and we can start to do broad-based umbrella negotiations.

[ Page 12937 ]

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can quickly seek the minister's response to a couple of specific points that are made in the report. I am at page 3 of the copy I have, but I don't know that the numbering is the same for the minister's copy.

I'm reading from the paragraph that says: "The sheer number and variety of first nations has significant process implications for treaty negotiations." Then there is a series of five bullet points that the author of this report has made. Beginning with the first one, the observation is made: "The negotiating capacity of Canada and especially British Columbia is stretched, thereby slowing the negotiations."

There seems to be a not so subtle suggestion that B.C. is having greater difficulty than the federal government in meeting the demands of negotiations. I don't need to pursue that at length, and maybe the minister simply wants to respond to the general proposition there. But the wording suggests that the authors are more troubled by the provincial response than they are by the federal.

[1655]

M. de Jong: The second point refers to treaty-related debts, and I presume.. . . Well, it says specifically "first nation treaty-related debts, the cost of negotiations." I might otherwise not be as concerned about that, but we saw what happened in the Nisga'a round of discussions where those debts became a fairly significant bargaining chip at the end of the process.

I'm curious: with respect to the 43 tables that are ongoing within the Treaty Commission process, is there an estimate of the first nation treaty-related negotiating debt that has accumulated in the case of those 51 first nations that are at those 43 tables?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, we have that information. I'm not sure we have it in our briefing binders here, but I'll certainly endeavour to get it for you.

M. de Jong: I look forward to getting that information.

Let us proceed on the basis that it is a significant amount of money when one considers the costs that various bands have accrued. Is there an opportunity in the minister's mind. . . ? When we talk about the limited leverage that government has to encourage a consolidation of the process, is there some leverage there to encourage that consolidation insofar as funding for the costs of negotiation and the availability of funding?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes, there is. Keep in mind that first nations debts, as I think the member is probably aware -- just for clarity on the record -- are loans that are being incurred by first nations who borrow money in order to facilitate their negotiating process. While we don't have the specific breakdown available, we will certainly get that to you. I'm advised that the total is somewhere in the range of $80-90 million, so these are not small numbers.

The member is absolutely correct. When one considers that there are some first nations who are engaged in the process who have already borrowed as much as, or perhaps even more than, they are likely to get in a final resolution on settlement, this becomes a real problem. Frankly, let me state on the record that from the province's perspective -- and it's something that we're trying to get the federal government to recognize, and I believe they do. . . . I think that we have to take heed, both the federal and provincial government -- especially the federal government -- with respect to the fiduciary obligations to first nations in this process, that you can't bankrupt a first nation in the process.

The member hits on a really crucial issue -- from my perspective, certainly -- and becoming aware of it, it sent all kinds of alarm bells off for me. Not only is it immensely expensive; it's incredibly detrimental to the final resolution on the question. So if we can, by consolidation, eliminate that debt load. . . . We are, through the Treaty Commission, pressing very hard to suggest the removal of some of the duplications that exist because of each band having to have their own set of negotiators, their own set of resource people, their own set of researchers and so on. If we can, through a consolidation process or through access to some kind of central bank of information, start to reduce those costs, that is very much an incentive for people to work together. I think the member will likely see more and more of that take place.

[1700]

But that's very troubling. It's troubling from the point of view of the first nations involved; it's extremely troubling from the point of view of the taxpayers who will be funding the settlement. And I think it warrants the examination that the minister is indicating he is prepared to undertake. I don't think anyone is winning in that circumstance.

Overlaps are the issue dealt with in the next point there.

I beg your pardon. There was one other point that I briefly alluded to with respect to the earlier issue. If I can just make this observation or this submission to the minister. One of the difficulties that the government -- particularly the federal government -- is going to experience if the provincial government attempts to embark upon that discussion -- that gentle nudge, as it were -- is the precedent that was set with the Nisga'a, where a significant portion of the costs of negotia-

[ Page 12938 ]

Well, maybe that's not a fair characterization, but sometimes I guess it calls for pretty tough negotiating. And having established that precedent, if I can use that term, if the situation the minister describes exists, I've got to believe that the federal and provincial governments are going to be confronted by a similar demand. It just flows logically.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think that the member. . . . Let me put a few things in context. First of all, all of the loan money comes from the federal government, not from the province. The province does not advance the loan money. While the member and I might look at the infrastructure money that the federal government provided to the Nisga'a and suggest that there was some trade-off on the matter of the loan, the federal government adamantly denies they did that and would be angered at me to suggest that they had done otherwise.

But having said that -- that the federal government believes that that money was for infrastructure development and that the member and I might think otherwise -- the member raises a very legitimate point. It is a point that needs to be addressed by the federal government with urgency, because we cannot. . . .

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

The member is absolutely correct. If you're talking about building capacity, building self-government, building self-reliance, building economic opportunity, what is the point of doing that if the cost of doing that is going to equal or possibly even exceed what you're going to benefit? If you're going to be in a net negative situation, then that's a serious problem.

[1705]

M. de Jong: The last point I want to raise with respect to these general observations is the one dealing with overlaps. The minister will recall that we had a fairly animated debate around the Nisga'a treaty about how the provincial government has dealt with or should deal with the question of overlaps. I think we've had this discussion in the context of how you provide those incentives or disincentives to consolidate negotiations. This issue of outstanding overlaps is one that threatens the acceleration of the settlement process that I think everyone would like to see.

There needs to be some mechanism found to give effect to what was initially, I think, the provincial strategy to compel -- and I use that word purposely -- first nations to resolve these overlaps. It is one aspect to these claims that they've got to deal with. As a means of reinforcing that and impressing it upon the participants -- the aboriginal participants -- in this exercise, it seems to me that a natural incident of that consolidation process would be to compel first nations to confront and deal with those overlap situations where they exist. So to the extent that the Treaty Commission has identified that, I think that's good.

The challenge, as with these other items, is to act on it and, I guess, to demonstrate the stick-to-it-iveness necessary to compel the participants to meet that challenge head-on. Otherwise, as this process does begin to pick up steam -- as we all hope it will -- and as we move into more populated areas of the province, we're going to have a dog's breakfast. We're going to have the negotiating equivalent of gridlock.

Hon. G. Wilson: We were just having a bit of a debate about what a dog's breakfast actually is, because I've never been quite sure.

A Voice: It's different from the cat's meow.

Hon. G. Wilson: Ah, okay.

Well, the member raises an important point. Overlaps obviously have been a critical issue. The good news is that the first nations are resolving them. In fact, you hear less and less about overlaps being an issue, because in the majority of cases the overlap issues are being dealt with. There are a few minority issues where the minority wishes they were not. But you're not hearing about them much anymore, because under the Treaty Commission process they are required to deal with them early on in the stages of negotiation. They are a prerequisite; the resolution of overlaps is a prerequisite to moving to an accelerated process. I can give comfort to the member there. You can't move into the accelerated process if there are overlap issues outstanding. So they are important issues. The first nations know them to be important issues; they are dealing with them. In most of the tables that are advancing right now, the overlap issues have all been dealt with. So I think that if there are things we've learned from Nisga'a, one of them is to make sure that the overlap issues are dealt with.

[1710]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised by my staff who are present that we actually insisted that this be in here. We, as much as the Treaty Commission, want to deal with this matter. This is part of a tripartite report that we are actively pursuing in discussion and negotiation. This material has now come forward and is being examined in the tripartite process so that all of the recommendations that come out of this would move into that tripartite review and those issues will be dealt with in that process. We are very much committed to assisting all parties in resolution on this question. We see it as a key element to the success of the negotiations.

M. de Jong: All right, that's straightforward enough.

[ Page 12939 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: This report is the Treaty Commission's report that comes out of the information that has been advanced, discussed and debated in the tripartite review. To the extent that there are issues that are addressed here, those issues will have been addressed as a result of what was brought to the table in the tripartite review, where issues and concerns were expressed. In some cases parties to the tripartite review insisted that there were certain issues outstanding that the Treaty Commission should really deal with and come out with some kind of comment on. The report, then, is the Treaty Commission's response to what they heard in the tripartite review that was undertaken by the federal government and the provincial government.

M. de Jong: With respect to the quotation and the recommendation I just read, the minister has pointed out that that is something the government of British Columbia, as one of the three participants in the tripartite process, endorses absolutely. It would be unfair of me to read this and come to the conclusion that -- for example, on that point -- the First Nations Summit also agrees they may. But I shouldn't make that assumption.

[1715]

M. de Jong: The upshot of it all is a recommendation or a series of recommendations. The question that arose for me out of all that is -- and it's a general question -- what impact. . . ? If action is taken on the recommendation that we've just been dealing with, to redefine, as it were, what a first nation is -- what qualifies a first nation to participate in the Treaty Commission process -- how, in the minister's mind, is that going to change? Let's take the ideal world. How, in a perfect world, would that change the way the Treaty Commission process looks from how it looks today -- if that recommendation were acted upon in a way that the government would like it acted upon?

Hon. G. Wilson: Our view. . . . I mean, if we had our way, I suppose it would mean that we would be negotiating in fewer forums and that we would be dealing with more of the bands in a unit. They may come together either as a tribal council or as an alliance, but we would be able to advance the negotiations in an expedited manner on several fronts at once, rather than having to deal with each individually. It removes duplication; it limits cost. I think it starts to build in some foundations and principles that are equal in application. There are just many, many good reasons to do it. It also allows us to. . . . I know that some first nations reject the land selection model, but from our perspective, anyway, it allows us to look at the land selection on a much larger regional basis to make some determination as to how things are going to work.

M. de Jong: I'll move to page 6 of the document. A series of questions are posed -- good questions, I think. I'm interested to know the government's response to them. "The Treaty Commission recognizes the potential seriousness of the Delgamuukw challenge to the definition of first nation as set out in the BCTC agreement. It further recognized the potential of the judgment to alter the very political foundations on which the treaty process rests. Specific questions that arise are: (1) whether the definition of first nation will have to be revisited. . . ." Within the context of the discussion we've just had, I think I know the answer to that from the government's point of view, but I'm interested to hear the minister state it.

Hon. G. Wilson: The answer is that we'd like to see it revisited in the context of trying to get more groups together into smaller forums, either through tribal alliances or through tribal councils, so that we can reduce the duplication and costs of negotiation.

M. de Jong: I guess that speaks to the advisability of adopting that step. I guess the question relates more to the legal imperative of doing so. Does the minister understand the distinction? If he does, is he prepared to answer with respect to the legal imperative?

[1720]

We have to obviously be very mindful that we don't walk ourselves into potential legal challenges or litigation. As I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer. . . . You'll correct me, I'm sure -- and maybe my staff will correct me -- if I'm wrong. This process, from our perspective, is not a proof of title process, so on the question of first nation definition, it's not that we're trying to enter into a proof of title process. However, we recognize that there are issues that relate to successorship that go back to 1846 that may have to be taken into account in the definition of who it is we're negotiating with, with respect to that particular territory. So it becomes, from a legal perspective, I'm told, more complicated than on. . . . The principle of what we're attempting to do is simply get general agreement that by bringing these groups together, we're able to advance the treaty forward in a much more cost-effective and more efficient way.

M. de Jong: When we began this, we touched briefly on the issue of onus and where the burden would fall in terms of establishing the existence of a first nation within the definition that the Treaty Commission had established. I think this question speaks to that as well. I don't know that I am going to achieve a great deal by pursuing the distinction between what is advisable and what is legally required, though it would be interesting, quite frankly, to know the position of the government -- and probably interesting to know the position of the Treaty Commission itself, as the keeper of the process. But that will be a question, I suppose, for another day.

The question that follows that relates to whether a new definition can be settled upon without disrupting the existing treaty process. Again, I am interested to know whether the

[ Page 12940 ]

[1725]

So I think that it's a matter of will. Do we have the will to actually make it work? Do the first nations have the will to formalize some kind of description that is going to provide us a greater opportunity to expedite the process, or not? I'm hopeful that they will. As to the government's view of the legal position, I wouldn't pretend to offer that from my position. I would leave that up to the Attorney General.

M. de Jong: Well, maybe at the risk of sounding crass -- which I know the minister would never accuse me of -- is there an argument to be made that if the prize is a process that is drastically more efficient and will significantly increase the speed with which some of these or many of these agreements can be achieved, some degree of dislocation or disruption is acceptable? The old adage about you can't please everyone every day. . . . If government proceeds with a view to acting on this recommendation but constrains itself by not wanting to offend a single group that is presently involved, then we're not going to get anywhere. I think the minister understands the point.

Hon. G. Wilson: I wouldn't use the word "prize," but I think the answer to that is yes. There is consensus, in my judgment, among the Summit, the commission, the federal government and the provincial government that the process has now bogged down somewhat, and we are now getting into an extended, almost into a minutiae of, discussion on a whole host of areas and issues that need to be dealt with in a much more expeditious way. Nobody can afford it. Everybody wants it done. I think that the system does need to be shaken up, and I've said so publicly. I'll say it to you: we do need to give it a shot in the arm and shake it up a little bit, and that is going to rattle some cages out there that are going to. . . . People are not going to react very favourably to some of the decisions, but I do think you have to take this on and make it work. I hear that coming from the leadership of most who are involved in the process. But in doing that, we don't want to shake it up so hard that we completely destroy the process.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, it's an interesting document. It certainly directs one's thought to this elusive issue of process and how it can be improved.

I have another issue relative to the Treaty Commission that I want to pursue, but my colleague from Kamloops has been very patient. He has an issue that I think it might be timely to. . . . I wonder if we might deal with that now.

K. Krueger: My constituency includes the reserve of the Kamloops Indian band, which, of course, is one of the bands that together comprise the Secwepemc people. We often refer to them as the Shuswap. Chief Manny Jules of the Kamloops Indian band is a very progressive individual and very accomplished. I'm sure that the minister is familiar with his work and may well be familiar with him as well.

[1730]

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I've met with Chief Manny Jules to discuss this issue, and I've indicated to him that the province does not support a parallel labour code. We believe that there are some legitimate concerns that he has with respect to activities within his jurisdiction, but it's our view that those concerns can and should be more properly dealt with in the text of a collective agreement.

K. Krueger: Is the minister and the ministry, then, embarking on some conciliation process whereby the obvious problem that the union and the Kamloops Indian band find themselves in is moved toward resolution?

Hon. G. Wilson: As the member will know, the difficulty we have is that the code that applies to lands under the jurisdiction of Chief Manny Jules is federal. It's a federal labour code, not a provincial code -- notwithstanding the fact that the BCGEU operates as a provincial union. So we don't really have very much jurisdiction on this question other than. . . . The meeting I had with Chief Jules was at his request, to see if there would be some level of support by the province to establish a parallel code provincially. Our position is that we don't believe it's necessary. I do think he has some legitimate concerns, but I think those concerns can be addressed, and properly should be addressed, through a collective agreement that takes those into account.

K. Krueger: My thanks to the minister. That issue of jurisdiction, of course, is one that often comes up. There are aboriginal people who feel that the province simply has no jurisdiction in their affairs, period. There are people who feel as though the province shouldn't be making any contributions toward aboriginal claims for that reason.

Yet we do have a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and a minister, and I have constituents who have a problem on both sides. Being that we have an infrastructure in place, a ministry -- eminently qualified civil servants in the ministry -- I had thought that there would be some effort underway to play a part in resolving this difficulty. When I say an effort underway, I mean on the part of the ministry itself. If that isn't the case, would the minister consider it?

Hon. G. Wilson: I couldn't help but notice that the member talked about our eminently qualified staff but didn't talk about the eminently qualified minister. I don't know if that was just an oversight.

[ Page 12941 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: Oh, they're not as new. Oh, okay.

K. Krueger: Just an oversight.

Hon. G. Wilson: Just an oversight -- right.

I have offered to assist where I can. I have spoken with the president of the BCGEU -- at least, I believe he's still the president, unless. . . . His retirement dinner is coming up shortly. We've talked about how we might be able to assist. I have met with Chief Jules. I've talked to him about what I think are some options and how we might be able to move on this. I've discussed this with my federal counterpart. We are actively talking about finding ways to try and assist this issue, to get beyond this -- you know, the problem that is clearly going to be posed if Chief Jules continues to proceed.

Very recently I had a chance to meet with the grand chief of the AFN. We had a chance to discuss that issue at the Assembly of First Nations, and what the federal issues are going to be -- with respect to their position on this. Are they going to embrace it? At the moment it looks like there's a greater sympathy there than there is within the province.

But we are dealing with the matter on a provincial basis as well. There is no support for this among the provincial trade union movement. The BCGEU clearly is not in favour; the B.C. Federation of Labour is not in favour; and the Canadian Labour Congress is not in favour. So I don't think that Chief Jules has much support out there. He may have some limited support within the AFN, and he may be getting a soft ear in Ottawa through the federal minister. But I don't think, in the final analysis, that it's going to be necessary or going to work.

[1735]

One of the things he will not get is an elimination of the right to strike, because you're not going to get a trade union to come forward and go into a bargaining process that doesn't have the right to strike. It's a tool that the union uses; it's longstanding, and it's a functional part of labour negotiations. So I don't think he's going to get much support. Now, if I can help resolve it, help change his mind. . . . I don't hold up much hope for that, but if I can, I'm happy to do that.

K. Krueger: Chief Jules remarked to me with some irony that the band, and aboriginal people in general, had always enjoyed a lot of support from a pretty broad spectrum of the NDP constituency, until some of their issues began to get down to where the rubber meets the road. He thinks of this as one of them. It is a difficult issue for many reasons. I thank the minister for those comments.

There is another issue that I'll just quickly raise, if I may. This has already been touched on in Advanced Education and Labour ministry estimates. It's a situation that's very unsatisfactory presently for the aboriginal people involved; once again, they find themselves butting heads, for lack of a better analogy, with the trade union movement. That pertains to the building maintenance worker or BMW certification effort by the Secwepemc people through the Skeetchestn band. Chief Ron Ignace and Chief Manny Jules had raised this matter to me. The Secwepemc Cultural and Education Society has advanced the cause of this certification effort. The Shuswap want to be able to train people to be building maintenance workers -- to be accredited as such -- to work on their own buildings on aboriginal property -- but also, I gather, to export the expertise and have an employment initiative. The existing building trades unions aren't happy about it at all. ITAC is somewhere mired in the middle. I wondered if the minister foresees his ministry being able to be of assistance in resolving this issue or whether it's been brought to his attention.

Hon. G. Wilson: No, actually, this is the first I've heard of it. It hasn't been brought to my attention. I doubt, to be honest, that my ministry would have any involvement at all. I do have a chance to meet with both of the chiefs mentioned -- on a fairly regular basis, it seems. I'm happy to sit down and talk to them at any time they choose to talk to me; but I have not heard about this issue. I would say that unionization within first nations in British Columbia is not unique or new. In the case of the Sechelt, I know that they're IWA and doing extremely well as a result of it. I think there should be less to fear about the process than is there. I think that there are some other underlying issues that need to be addressed in these questions. To the extent that I can help out with that, I'm happy to do so. But I honestly know nothing about this issue.

K. Krueger: I won't belabour it then, other than to let the minister know I think it would be a good idea for him to involve himself, because it seems to me to sort of be an irresistible force meeting an immovable object right now. I don't know that the two ministries embroiled in it are going to be able to resolve it. It seems to me there's room for some compromise. It's not a unionization issue, but an apprenticeship issue. This is an educational program that the Secwepemc people have been developing through SCES and they feel stonewalled.

The building trades unions, on the other hand, raise some very legitimate concerns, including the safety of the apprentices themselves. There'll be situations where, if they were entirely given a green light, they would be working with natural gas and with electricity, and it could be dangerous to them. The trade unions have said to me: "In our jobs, you don't get second chances; you get coffins." I take that very seriously. They're quite correct if you're dealing with natural gas and electricity.

It seems to me there's room for compromise. Since we have an Aboriginal Affairs ministry and this is an issue that's very dear to the gentlemen's hearts that we've been referring to, I'd appreciate it if the minister would devote some resources to helping resolve it. I'll leave it at that.

[1740]

[ Page 12942 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: I'll commit to the member that we'll look into it. Our aboriginal relations branch might be able to assist in this process; if we can, we will.

M. de Jong: We spent a fair bit of time this afternoon reviewing a Treaty Commission document. I want to review another one. I'm mindful of the time, and. . . .

Hon. S. Hammell: Time, gentlemen, time.

M. de Jong: Let the record show that for once I'm enjoying overwhelming support from the government benches for what I am about to propose -- which means that I will make the motion we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again, Madam Chair.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:42 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada