Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1999

Volume 15, Number 15

[ Page 13019 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)

G. Abbott: Just a couple of brief notes, coming out of our more extensive discussion of yesterday about the application of the Highway Constructors Ltd. program to the Cache Creek-Rockies Trans-Canada Highway corridor. I asked the minister yesterday whether any meeting had been requested. I note that the spokesman for the contractors group, Gerry Hoefsloot of Kelly Mountain Contracting, requested by fax on May 25, a meeting with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Has the minister now received that piece of correspondence, or shall I table it for his attention? Number two, is the minister prepared to meet as soon as possible with this group?

Hon. H. Lali: My staff have looked in the office and can't find a request for a meeting anywhere. That's not to say that they may not have asked for a meeting. But certainly HCL, the unions and this group are going to be meeting in early June to try to resolve some of these issues.

I also want to inform the House that yesterday. . . . In response to a question from the hon. member regarding the payment of union dues, I just want to, for clarification, read a little statement here for the record: "Non-union contractors and employees pay union dues or costs starting on day one of employment, although they don't have to join the union until day 30 of employment. They are not reimbursed if their job ends before 30 days, because they get the benefits of being in a unionized worksite from day one -- which include enhanced safety, enhanced wages, enhanced benefits." This is the unionized construction industry standard.

[1010]

Hon. H. Lali: It's actually in the collective agreement. Staff are just searching for that answer. Perhaps the member can come back in a few minutes with the question.

R. Thorpe: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: It's a real pleasure for me today to have two visitors in the gallery: Tanya Swaren and Anita Bakker, two constituents of mine from Summerland. Would the House please make these ladies welcome.

R. Neufeld: I have just a few brief questions to the minister on the TFA, on the Sierra-Desan road. Basically, what I'd like to do is get on the record the total amount for the contract. Maybe we could start there. What is the total dollar amount of the contract for the Sierra-Desan road upgrade?

Hon. H. Lali: The total cost of the project is $12.6 million. There is an $11.2 million agreement in place with Walter Construction to upgrade and maintain for a five-year period. Walter is responsible for delivery and budget, plus schedule risks and all costs, except a $300,000 annual contribution from the Ministry of Energy and Mines for maintenance recovered from users through a cabinet-approved system of charges. The Rainbow connector to connect the SYD Road to Rainbow Lake, Alberta, is being promoted by two proponents, Doug Gordon Contracting and AEC West, as a private toll road.

R. Neufeld: The $12.6 million -- over what period of time is that dollar amount going to be spent? Is that within this calendar year, this fiscal year? Or is it over the five-year period?

Hon. H. Lali: It's over five years. It's for operating and for maintaining. It's for upgrading and maintaining.

R. Neufeld: So the $300,000, as I understand it, that the Ministry of Energy and Mines puts in yearly to maintenance and the $300,000 that industry puts in -- are they included in the $12.6 million? Or is the industry's portion not in that $12.6 million?

Hon. H. Lali: It is inclusive.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister tell me where we are at the present time -- I believe that some roadwork began last year, but I'm not sure -- and where we are on a construction schedule? Does it meet with what the government had expected in this contract at the present time?

Hon. H. Lali: It's well underway, with substantial construction. I guess we can't really attach a figure, whether it's a certain percentage finished or not. But it is well underway.

[1015]

[ Page 13020 ]

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

R. Neufeld: Then I assume I will be receiving that construction schedule from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Probably the last issue around the Sierra-Desan road is the road users contract or rate that they're charged. I've read the contents of how they're assessed, but I understand there are some companies that are upset or don't feel that it's going in the right direction. I just wonder if the minister could briefly update me on that portion of it.

Hon. H. Lali: We meet with the industry all the time and are prepared to always review it. The funding formula has been agreed to by the users, who pay the majority of the fees. Some users actually would prefer an alternate formula. Again, the BCTFA is prepared to examine alternate formulas if users unify to present a viable suggestion.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I know; I went through that process of negotiation in the communities up north in trying to figure out a way to do it. But maybe I'll reword this. I understand that some companies feel that the area that has to pay to upgrade the Sierra-Desan road system -- because it's all industry-financed; other than the maintenance by Energy and Mines, all the rest is financed by industry -- is too large. It takes in areas where companies don't even use the Sierra-Desan road to access their gas plays, and that's where some of the issues are coming from. I'm just wondering if TFA is aware of that and what they're doing to alleviate that problem. I understand some of it is fields that are accessed on the Liard Highway, Highway 77, which is in bad repair also, but they're paying fees to the Sierra-Desan road operating off the Liard Highway. I just wonder if I could get a brief update on that.

Hon. H. Lali: The BCTFA is aware of that and is prepared to look at that whole situation again. We are working with the oil and gas commissioner. In the end, the dollars have to be recovered from the users, but we're willing to dialogue to see if there's a different formula that can be arrived at.

R. Neufeld: Has the original agreement that's being used now -- I guess the original one, because it's been changed a number of times -- had any changes in the last six months as to the area where people are assessed the fee for the Sierra-Desan road? Has it been changed in the last number of months in any way?

Hon. H. Lali: No.

R. Neufeld: Last question. I wonder if I could request a copy of that agreement from the minister, please.

Hon. H. Lali: Yes, we'll forward one over to the hon. member.

[1020]

In the process of doing a capital construction, do you have a safety audit done on the particular construction that's been done, be it a highway, a bridge or whatever? Are safety audits required for each of those capital projects?

Hon. H. Lali: The safety audits are required for some, but not for all projects.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might explain, then, at what stage the safety audits on a particular project are conducted.

Hon. H. Lali: Safety is actually a part of the design process, and we have value engineering on projects over $5 million. But if we are aware of some safety concerns, then we would do it.

D. Symons: I guess what I'm asking, in the form of a safety audit, is: do you have some external person looking at it to make sure that your internal people have not left something out that's important? I gather that when Highway 407 was privatized recently, a safety audit was required in that sale. It ran somewhere in the neighbourhood of over $1 million to do that. Whereas if that safety audit had been done at the time the plans were being done -- and was worked in as part of the design and the people who were doing the design had that audited in the design -- it could have saved a considerable amount of money.

I might ask the minister: are you having external audits done, or are you simply looking at your own work and saying: "Aye, that's fine"? Secondly, are you going to do it when the design is being done so that you can save time and money? I had a third question, which has escaped me at the moment. The minister, at the beginning, indicated that sometimes they do a safety audit; it wasn't a requirement all the time. So if you might explain where it comes into fact that you say: "Well, on this particular project we do a safety audit; on that one we don't. . . ." How do you determine that?

Hon. H. Lali: When safety concerns are raised, either by ICBC or the public, we do a safety audit, but safety is actually a part of the whole design process. It has to be brought to our attention if there are concerns by some independent source -- such as ICBC, which is independent from us -- and also by members of the public.

D. Symons: I'm not too sure I fully agree with what the minister said. It would seem that most of those safety issues have probably come up after the fact. You built the highway, and now ICBC or these other people will see that there are some problems built into the highway that could be dealt with. But I'll move on to some other topics. Many of the ones that I'm going to ask now may be a TFA or possibly a Highways. . . . I guess the minister will have to tell me at the time. If it's for Highways, I'll just postpone it.

[1025]

[ Page 13021 ]

Hon. H. Lali: That is actually one of the leading contenders that we're looking at. It's certainly cheaper, and it's also part of the corridor management plan.

D. Symons: Good to know that you're not just thinking of dealing with the current highway, but of other ways of getting around that. I think the same situation occurs with the Trans-Canada Highway out of Golden, where there's an area where the highway might not have been put in the right location to begin with. It may be necessary to relocate a portion of the highway to give you the sort of width and what not that you need to make that into a world-class interprovincial highway. So I'm wondering if again you're considering, at that location, relocating the highway in that one area where it's rather difficult to four-lane it.

Hon. H. Lali: That is actually one of the options we're looking at in terms of building the highway on the south side of the canyon. Presently it's on the north side. So that's one of the options that we are also actively pursuing.

D. Symons: If we can go up to Greenville and Kincolith Road, I think that's just not part of the Nisga'a agreement. But it's certainly, in a sense, a side agreement that you're going to do some highway work there. I gather that in 1996 the federal government transferred $10 million to the TFA as its contribution toward this project. I'm wondering at what stage this project is now -- if you can tell me the timetable you have for construction of that particular road.

Hon. H. Lali: It's presently under the environmental assessment process. We're waiting for the federal government to give us the Canadian environmental assessment process certificate. We're hopeful that it'll be given by the fall of this year.

D. Symons: Then the environmental process used for that particular piece of road certainly seems to be much more stringent than the environmental process that the government is using on its own project for the SkyTrain development in the lower mainland. I'm wondering also on that particular project. . . . I'm just looking at the government document here that says they're looking for. . . . Recoveries are being explored in the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the Ministry of Forests. So you're looking for some financial input from B.C. Ferries and the Ministry of Forests. How are each of those going? What's your rationale for asking for money from B.C. Ferries to build a road up north?

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, that's not one of the options that we're looking at this year. We have a cost-sharing agreement with the Nisga'a on that. Actually, the cost-sharing we're looking at with the other ministries was something from last year.

[1030]

Hon. H. Lali: We're actually nearing completion on the seismic on the Oak Street Bridge. There's $625,000 allotted in this year's budget.

D. Symons: I'm wondering if the minister might give me an idea of how much the seismic portion of that whole upgrade of the Oak Street Bridge costs. What portion of the total cost was for the seismic upgrading of that bridge?

Hon. H. Lali: We'll have to break it down and get back to the hon. member on that.

D. Symons: It's been a few years -- I think it's about only two years -- since the bridge deck was rehabilitated. It's interesting, driving over it, to notice problems developing already. Large pieces of the asphalt seem to come loose fairly frequently. Right now you seem to be working on all of the expansion joints on the bridge. What are the problems? Obviously a bridge that's been rehabbed that recently shouldn't now be having expansion joints all worked on again -- because there certainly is something going wrong there. What's being rectified? What's gone wrong? How much is this going to cost, and who is paying it?

Hon. H. Lali: Actually, that should be more appropriately dealt with under the ministry estimates.

D. Symons: We'll revisit that a few minutes from now, then. Maybe the next one will fit there too. I think that from now on we'll have that problem with many of the topics to come up in the future -- as to whether it's a ministry or a TFA problem.

Gibsons bypass, Highway 101. Phase 3 of this particular project. . . . Now, the whole project of the Gibsons bypass was started just about a decade ago. Where's phase 3, and when's the plan to do it?

Hon. H. Lali: We will not be proceeding with phase 3 of the Gibsons bypass this year.

D. Symons: When the minister says "not," does that mean it's postponed? Or is it simply cancelled? It's still on the books, or it's -- at least -- cancelled for the foreseeable future? Is there a distinction in there?

Hon. H. Lali: The project is actually being postponed. The review that we did revealed that it was not needed this year but perhaps in the future.

[ Page 13022 ]

There are sections of Highway 101 besides the Gibsons bypass that are in dire need of upgrading. Some portions between Secret Cove and Madeira Park are particularly poor. Is dealing with those problems on Highway 101 anywhere in your foreseeable future?

[1035]

D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. It's a start, and that's great. I have finished -- so that things will work out all right -- most of the things I wanted to ask that dealt with TFA. We may find that I have some things badly categorized in a moment. Another member has a question or two. But I'll be ready in a moment, I think, to move into rehabilitation per se. Well, maybe that's still TFA, isn't it? We'll see.

K. Krueger: Yesterday, I had been discussing the paving of the roads in the village of Vavenby with the minister, and I asked the question of whether the comparative numbers could be provided to the House with regard to the cost of doing the whole project now or doing it in two stages. The numbers weren't available yesterday, but the minister said that they'd get them. I wonder if they're available today.

Hon. H. Lali: We don't have the estimates, because we never did estimates for the entire projects. The estimates were done just for what we were doing.

K. Krueger: Well, as a general rule, what percentage of additional cost would there be if you do a project in two stages, with a year or two in between, rather than all at once. We're talking about 4.3 kilometres of roads that are in very rough shape, and the ministry's planning on doing 2.2 kilometres. I think it'll be a substantial additional cost to come back in a year or two and gear up completely to do it all over again rather than to do it all at once. Could the minister give us an estimate of the percentage of additional cost?

Hon. H. Lali: There is actually no fixed rule or formula for trying to determine what the cost would be. It depends on a lot of factors: the physical conditions that exist in the area; what else, in terms of other work, we're doing in the vicinity. It would probably lower the cost if a couple of projects could be done by the same outfit in the area. It also depends.. . . That will suffice for an answer right now, I think.

G. Abbott: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today 47 students from Len W. Wood Elementary School in Armstrong. These 47 students are the graduating class of Len W. Wood Elementary, and their reward for the first instalment of their education is a trip to Vancouver and Victoria and the opportunity to see the Legislature in action during a rather quiet period. Hopefully, they'll all be able to come back some day when we're doing question period. Sometimes it's a slightly more rambunctious place than it is today. I also want to welcome their teachers, Miss Donna Smith and Mr. Geoff Austin, as well as the chaperons who have generously consented to accommodate the students on their trip to Victoria. I'd like to ask the House to make them welcome.

K. Krueger: Just following up the Vavenby issues that the minister and I were discussing prior to the introduction, the numbers I have are that the cost of a project is inflated by at least 20 percent if it's done in an extra stage rather than all at once. On a relatively small project like this, I think it'd make a lot of sense to do that. I wonder if the minister could comment on the 20 percent number I've used and also on whether the ministry and the TFA are willing to reconsider and get the job done in the summer of '99, instead of leaving it half finished and costing a lot more later.

[1040]

D. Symons: I was interested in the minister's answer, because basically you have agreed that there are added expenses in doing little pieces of road and then coming back and doing another piece. What I notice, when we look at the rehab projects that have been announced around the province, is that we have an awful lot of little pieces being done, and in the plan, the next one to it is going to be done the year after. You're planning on doing three kilometres here, two kilometres there and coming back the next year and doing another three kilometres or two kilometres. It adds to the cost of bringing the equipment and the people out and getting the whole projected ramped up to do it. There are extra costs in that.

Would it not be better to do half the number of projects but do twice as much work this year on those, and then do the other half of the projects but, again, do twice what you're planning on doing over a two-year period on that project? You would save money, and the minister sort of confirmed a moment ago that it could be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 percent. Certainly somewhere between 10 and 20 percent could be saved if you would make those two- or three- or four-kilometre stretches of road that you're rehabbing this year into the double length that you're planning on doing over a two-year period, then do the other ones as a total project the following year as well. You would get the same amount of work done over a two-year period, and you would save money in the process of doing it.

[ Page 13023 ]

D. Symons: I've had some wag, I guess, tell me that what the government's trying to do is show the flag in as many places as they can, prior to an election. That impression gets out there, too, and we certainly wouldn't want people around the province believing that this government is using blacktop politics.

Just going back to rehab. I wonder if we could just look at rehab, because I think rehab really is the heart of what the ministry itself is now able to do. In fact, it's getting money from TFA as well, isn't it? Our highways infrastructure is extremely important in the province, and I'm glad it's in reasonable shape and that these young people behind me here were able to get down to Victoria safely. We have our highways. . . . If we postpone the resurfacing of a highway too long, the costs climb dramatically. The minister is fully aware of that, I know. We have a fair number of highways around the province that have fallen into that category.

But you have two methods of doing this. One of them is to use what I'll refer to as the regular batch method of repaving, and the other is to use the method of hot-in-place, which uses the current road, pulls it up, puts it through a process and lays it out as the whole train moves along the highway. Has there been a study done on the relative merits, the economic cost-benefit merits, of one process over the other? Can you give me the life expectancy of each of those two processes for resurfacing a road and what any studies in cost-benefit analysis might have given you on using one or the other of those processes?

[1045]

D. Symons: Many of the following questions, I'm assuming. . . . We can't always be sure, because that line between whether it's TFA or Highways is difficult to see. We'll only find out when we ask the question, as I found out now. But I plan on going ahead with the rehab maintenance and so forth. From what the minister said, most of these jobs. . . . There will be other questions asked by some of my colleagues on particular projects in their area. I suggested to them that they would probably be best asked under Highways, and I'm hoping that's going to be the correct answer to them and is going to fit in with your plans as well as my plans. So if we could, we'll move into the Highways ministry estimates themselves now.

Hon. H. Lali: Those questions are actually better served under the ministry estimates, so I'll have to call in my ministry staff and have the BCTFA staff. . . .

Hon. Chair, I'd like to move that the committee recess for five minutes.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 10:47 a.m. to 10:54 a.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

D. Symons: I don't know if I need to repeat the question I asked prior to our recess, but I was asking. . . . Basically we have two methods of rehabbing a surface or resurfacing a road. One is the batch method: the common method of bringing in asphalt and laying it. The other one is the hot-in-place method, where the current asphalt is removed, goes through a process on a moving train and then is relaid on the road. I was asking if you might tell me the life expectancy of those two methods of resurfacing a road and also whether there's been a cost-benefit analysis done so that we could determine which is the best, cost-effective way of resurfacing our highways.

[1055]

I'd like to actually introduce the staff that are here with me. I have John Dyble, the assistant deputy minister for planning and major projects, on my far left. To his right is Mr. Har Singh, the assistant deputy minister for management services. To my right is Mr. Dan Doyle, the assistant deputy minister for ministry operations. To my immediate left is Claire Dansereau, the associate deputy minister.

D. Symons: I missed the life expectancy of the standard batch method of doing it. If you wouldn't mind repeating it a little later, I'll just note it down.

You haven't done a definitive study, then, on the cost-benefit analysis -- from the answer you gave -- between the two methods. I assume that you're working on that, watching what the highways are doing under each of those particular resurfacing techniques and then will be giving us some response to that later. I don't mean later this year, but as time goes on.

I wonder if you might give me an idea of how many lane-kilometres of paved road are being resurfaced under the rehab program this year. How many lane-kilometres are we doing this year? Would you have the figure for the number of lanes that you had done last year?

Hon. H. Lali: We are gathering data on the first part of the comments that the hon. member made. When that is done, it will be made available to the hon. member.

In terms of the lane-kilometres that were resurfaced in 1998-99, there was a total of 2,540 lane-kilometres, of which 780 were paving, 370 were hot-in-place and 1,390 kilometres were seal-coat. There were 590 lane-kilometres of first-time surfacing. In 1999-2000 we're planning 2,200 lane-kilometres, of which 800 is paving, 475 is hot-in-place, and 925 is seal-coat. First-time surfacing is 215 lane-kilometres.

D. Symons: You gave me more than I asked for there, because I had asked for paved roads that are being resurfaced. So the hot-in-place and the regular match method, I guess, are the ones I was after there.

I have a "Building Better Roads for B.C." document that the minister put out when he put out the news release of

[ Page 13024 ]

Your own document indicates that by waiting that extra six years, the cost of repavement, of upgrading it, goes up considerably. I assume that the 12-year one is more or less a resurfacing, whereas by the time you get to the 18-year-old, you have some breakdown in the surface and all the rest, so that it requires a lot more work in doing it -- and shouldering and all the other things that go with it.

But if we have the average age of our pavement on highways at 16 years already, and we have in this province somewhere in the neighbourhood of 48,000 lane-kilometres of paved highways -- and if you divide 48,000 by 12, which I did -- you come up with 4,000 kilometres that need to be repaved every year just to keep up with that little part of the highways if you're doing it every 12 years. We already have over 50 percent of our highways that are over 12 years.

[1100]

K. Krueger: Quintuple.

D. Symons: Quintuples? Okay, that sounds better than pentangles -- which are both, depending on whether you're doing Latin or Greek.

Anyway, it quintuples, then, over that period of time if you wait. We're getting to the stage where this is happening. I'm just wondering what plans the ministry has. How are you going to deal with this rather difficult problem of the aging of our highways and the fact that the costs escalate if you leave it too long. We've already left a lot of it too long. I'm not blaming this minister for it; it's something that's happened over a period of years. But how are you going to address this problem so that we don't continue to have the problem?

Hon. H. Lali: I'm glad that the hon. member across the way actually agrees with the government that there is a need for us to be fixing the transportation infrastructure in this province.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: Well, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson -- I don't want to leave him out -- also agrees with the government that we should be doing that. That's probably one reason why he has been getting some record investment in his constituency over the last three years. That's good news for the people of Kamloops-North Thompson.

I just want to point out that the announcement I made in March -- the opposition critic was also present -- was for $490 million of investment in our highways and transportation infrastructure in this province. It is the largest capital plan that we have had in this province in a decade.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I see that the hon. member for North Island is also applauding. There are some great projects that have been coming up his way as well. It does, actually, spell good news for people, especially those people living in rural British Columbia -- such as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson and also the member for North Island.

The government has made that commitment, especially up in the north. We've got the northern roads initiative. In 1997 we had, under my ministry, a capital and rehab investment, up in that neck of the woods which was less than $30 million. We doubled it last year -- actually, more than doubled it -- to $66 million and then increased it again this year to $69 million. We're embarking upon a multi-year program to make sure that the roads up in rural areas, such as the north, are going to be looked after and also that new projects are built. I also want to point out that there's more money going into paving now than there has been, traditionally, in the past. We're actually trying to stabilize the rehab budget. It's doubled from the year before -- from 1997 levels. We want to make sure that that is sustainable.

I just want to give you some examples, for the record, for some of the constituencies up in the northern part of the province. Peace River South had a $9.4 million investment in 1997. A year later it was $13 million, and this year it's a $15 million investment. In Peace River North it was almost $3 million in 1997. In 1998 it was $12 million, and it's $7.2 million in this year's budget. In Cariboo North it was increased from $1.2 million in 1997 to well over $4 million last year and almost $5 million this year. In Kamloops-North Thompson it was $10.2 million in 1997. Last year it was $25 million, and this year it's $16.3 million.

[1105]

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I think the member's quite happy, and he should be happy that the government is investing in an opposition riding and not discriminating against anybody. I think the member should be happy about that.

We believe in rebuilding our transportation infrastructure. That is why, on behalf of all the provinces, B.C. had the pen to write a paper called the "National Transportation Investment Strategy," calling on the federal government to live up to its commitment in terms of the upkeep of our federal highway system. We've been maintaining for a very, very long time that the federal government needs to do more. They collect $700 million a year in fuel taxes out of British Columbia. Last year we got $1 million back from the feds. The three-year average before that was $6 million a year. I think they need to cough up a lot more than that, especially in terms of the amount of fuel taxes they take out of this province.

You contrast that with what the B.C. government is doing. We collect roughly $750 million in fuel taxes in British

[ Page 13025 ]

We're calling on them to participate in funding projects, such as perhaps the South Fraser perimeter road, Trans-Canada Highway 1, Cache Creek to the Height of the Rockies -- and other projects in the ridings of the members opposite.

D. Symons: Again, I'll just remind the minister that I suggested yesterday that maybe he can get, through his pull on that side of the House and being the people who control the legislative agenda, Motion 41 to come forward. We'd be delighted, since it's my motion that we ask the federal government for more money. So I'll just remind the minister. I hope he's been buttonholing his caucus members now, so we can get that forward, and together we can work on the feds to put some fair-share funding into highways in the province.

While the minister was nicely throwing millions around the province and doing a great job of throwing the millions around, the only thing he didn't do. . . . He didn't really answer my question, because my question had to do with the fact that we have a deficit of highways in this province that need rehabbing. The rehabilitation of those highways is extremely important. We have. . . . If you were to do that in your 12-year schedule, where the price is reasonable for rehabbing, we'd have to do 4,000 kilometres of road each year -- and I'm talking about paved roads in the province.

A few minutes ago, when I asked, "Well, how many are you doing?" the figures the minister gave me were the total amount of seal-coating and all the things they're doing. Some of that's being done on gravel roads. You know, you have about 1,200 kilometres of roads that are actually paved roads that you're repaving in this year's fiscal framework, and that is half of what is needed, really, just to keep up and not let the thing get older and older -- that average of the pavement rehabbing in this province to get even worse than it currently is. . . . So my question was: what are you doing to address that particular problem? Not where you're throwing money for capital projects and all the rest around, but just the problem that we have a real deficit of rehab in this province.

You have put more money this year -- I will admit it and give you credit for it -- into rehabilitation projects than has been done in the entire life of the NDP government up till this point. So that's good. But we have a deficit -- a lot of it created by drastic underfunding in past years. Now, I guess, in a sense the chickens are coming home to roost on this issue. The pavement in our province is getting older and older each year, and we're in real trouble.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm actually very, very glad that the hon. member is putting on the record that he actually agrees with the government and the plan that the government has put forward. I welcome the comments by the hon. member opposite. We recognize that there is a problem, and that is why. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: I'm sure the hon. member recognizes it as well. That is why. . . . And I'm going to read from a graph that I have here. In the 1997-98 budget, we had about $80 million that went into the rehab budget. So we recognized there was a deficit; we recognized there was a problem. That's why last year, shortly after I became minister, we embarked upon a multi-year rehab program to try to keep a stable, sustainable level of rehab investment in this province. That's why we doubled it from the year before. Last year the investment in rehabilitation in this province was between $160 million and $170 million. In this year's budget, we're keeping it at that same level. It's about $150 million of rehabilitation work that we'll be executing in this province. We want to do that on a continuous basis to make sure that we do get rid of the deficit.

[1110]

I just want to give you. . . . As an example, there are eight constituencies in the north. In the fiscal year '97 the investment was $23.8 million. In the fiscal year '98 it was $64.2 million. In fiscal '99 the estimate is for $88 million worth of investment in the north. In the, I think, about a dozen constituencies in the Cariboo and the interior. . . . It's almost a dozen. I think it's about ten; I haven't done a quick count here. In 1997 fiscal we had an investment of $36.7 million. Last year, in 1998, it was $68 million; it was doubled from the year before. The estimate for the planned expenditures for fiscal '99 is $105 million. In the Kootenays, with the four constituencies there, the investment in 1997 was $16.6 million. In fiscal '98 it was $22.8 million. This year, in fiscal '99, it's $65 million. So we are achieving the levels that we want to achieve. We are recognizing that there's a problem, and we are spending heavily in the rehabilitation sector.

D. Symons: We might add at the end of that "and all debt-financed as well." I appreciate the minister's desire to save trees in the province by reading all of that into the record rather than giving us copies of it. But, you know, it still hasn't quite. . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: Ah, you caught on. Thank you.

. . .answered the question I was asking, and I assume I'm not really going to get a full answer to it. Your government has, over the years -- up until the last two years -- drastically underfunded rehabilitation in this province. This fiscal year you've put in a fair amount more. That's good. We still aren't doing enough, though, to catch up with what I mentioned before. If your figures on your own paper here say 12 years of upgrading pavements, $60,000; 18 years, $300,000. . . . By leaving it those extra six years, you're quadrupling -- or, we decided, quintupling -- the cost of doing that rehab work. And we have half our highways already moving toward that upper figure. That was the question I was asking, and you've given me a whole pile of other figures that are irrelevant to the particular question.

But I guess we'll move on, because we could spend the rest of the day on this particular topic, and I realize we are

[ Page 13026 ]

I'm wondering if you might tell me how many kilometres of paved road are being seal-coated this year -- you gave me some figures before and missed that -- and how many kilometres of non-paved roads are going to be seal-coated or oiled or whatever. You were throwing out all the numbers before, and if I could just have those separately, I'd appreciate it.

[1115]

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: I'd like to introduce the members of the article 29 committee. This is a union-management committee that is working right now. The union members who are present up in the galleries are: Sharon MacDonald, who is the co-chair, Mike Eso, Debra Yearley and Ken Read. Would the House please make these folks welcome.

The hon. member wanted to know how much seal-coating we did. In 1998 seal-coating was 1,390 kilometres. This year we're planning to do 925 kilometres of seal-coating.

I want to point out to the hon. member. . . . He said that we are not spending enough in rehabilitation. That's what the member said. Clearly the hon. member across the way is saying that we should spend more on rehabilitation in the province, because he thinks that we're not keeping up and we need to be able to do that.

The Liberal opposition can't have it both ways. On the one side, they rail against the government, saying that we have a deficit or have a debt that's increasing; then they come into this House and turn around and say that we should spend more money. So I'd like to ask the hon. members: what does it do to their plan, as they say, to decrease the deficit or the debt if they're actually asking for more money to be spent?

Last year, under the BCTFA, we spent $380 million -- or roughly thereabouts. The final figures haven't come in yet in terms of the reports, but we had planned to spend $380 million, and that was an increase of $100 million from the year before. This year we're planning to spend $210 million more than two years ago. It's a record investment in the last ten years. There's never been a Highways program in the last ten years as large as it is this year. Then the hon. member is saying: "It's not good enough. We want you to spend more money." More money, he's saying, which means that what he's saying is more deficit, more debt. That's what the hon. member is saying.

I also just want to point out that we're getting letters and calls from all across the province, whenever I do my tours in the province and visit all these local communities. I've had mayors and councillors, band chiefs and people who are in the chambers of commerce all coming up to me and to my staff, telling us how we are listening to the people and responding in a big way and that the job that the ministry is doing is a very, very good job.

My ministry actually received a certificate of appreciation signed by Mike Smith, who's the co-chair of the North Peace Rural Road Task Force, and also by Fred Jarvis. I don't know if he's any relation of the hon. member across the way. He's the chair of the North Peace economic development commission. It's a certificate of appreciation that they did up and gave to my ministry. It says: "Presented to the management and staff of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, North Peace district, in appreciation for your efforts in delivering the 1998 road rehabilitation program. Thank you, thank you, thank you." That's what the people across the province are saying. But the Liberals are saying: "Spend more money" -- more money than we're currently spending.

T. Nebbeling: We say: "Waste less." That's what we're saying.

The Chair: Member. . . .

D. Symons: I suppose, then, that we would get four thank-yous where you only got three, if you did that. Most interesting, you know. It's "Building Better Roads. . . ." It's got the British Columbia BCTFA logo on the bottom and everything all here, and it's a document of yours that says the cost per kilometre to upgrade 12-year-old pavement is $600,000, and the cost to upgrade 18-year-old pavement is $300,000. All I'm saying -- and have been saying for the last short while -- is that waiting those extra six years quintuples the expense, and the minister is basically saying to ignore it.

That's fine. I'm just saying it's a problem that you have to address, and it's an issue that's there. Part of that problem is there because -- and the minister admitted it -- you're spending more this year than in all the previous ten years. Right -- there's the problem. The past ten years have been drastically underfunded, and it has created this huge problem that we have today. It's a problem your government created, a problem your government is going to have to address.

[1120]

Hon. H. Lali: Ditch-clearing and the other items that the hon. members mentioned are actually a part of the maintenance operations.

But I heard the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi say that we should waste less money. I agree that there should be less money wasted -- such as the $1 million that the B.C. Liberal Party spent in a partisan advertisement with taxpayers' dollars. I mean, that was a complete waste of money, which should have come, actually, out of the party.

The hon. member, also my critic, made a statement that we spent less in the last ten years and that's where the problem had occurred. I beg to differ with the hon. member. If he would recall, the Social Credit government used to expense all of the Highways expenditures on a year-to-year basis. So when they were building the Coquihalla Highway, most of the money went into building the Coquihalla system. Virtually every other part of the province was being ignored, especially in the rehab sector.

When Art Charbonneau was the Minister of Highways from '91 until '93. . . . There was one year where he had the rehabilitation budget at $180 million, which is actually about

[ Page 13027 ]

Obviously the hon. member, again, is stating that we should spend more money. I mean, if he's in favour of the government borrowing more money to pay for these projects, then he should come out and say so. That's where the money is coming from. Projects are paid for over the useful life span of that particular project.

D. Symons: Well, the last words are quite correct -- over the useful life span. Your own documents indicate that the useful life span is at the 12-year point. You are tending to make light of that particular fact. I would love to know what year it was $180 million, because my memory does not serve me on that. I will certainly go back and look in those estimates books to see where that happened. I remember that there were fairly large cutbacks, under the particular minister you mentioned, in both capital and rehab spending in that ministry. So I will go back and check them out. If you'll let me know later on what year it was, I'll check that out.

I asked a moment ago about the ditching and other issues and where they come under in ministry spending. I wonder if you might tell me where the line is between non-capital rehabilitation and capital rehabilitation. You have some that you're paying for by debt financing, and you have a very small number that you're paying for out of ministry expenses factored into that particular budget. Where's the line between whether it's non-capital or capital that is debt financed?

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member asked for the difference between capitalized rehab and non-capitalized rehab. If we can put a life span on a particular piece of work, that is done. That then comes under capitalized rehab. But something which doesn't have a life span, such as gravelling and avalanche control, would come under non-capitalized rehab.

[1125]

Just to leave that for a moment, can we move on to the Oak Street Bridge again? We were looking at some seismic upgrading of that recently. A fairly extensive job of rehabilitation of that bridge was done just recently -- two years ago. I notice now that the plug joints on it -- the expansion joints -- all seem to be worked on there. I wonder if you might be able to tell me what has gone wrong there. Was the job not done properly the first time? Why is it being redone now, and what's that going to cost?

Hon. H. Lali: We had some problem with the joints and the seals on the bridge, and the repairs are a joint and shared responsibility between the ministry and the contractor.

D. Symons: I wonder if the minister might be able to tell me whether the original job -- not the whole job for doing the bridge but just the job that deals with the expansion joints, or the plug joints there -- was tendered.

Hon. H. Lali: Yes.

D. Symons: I've heard -- and I'm not sure whether this is maintenance or rehab; we're into maintenance now, I suspect -- that for some of the deterioration on the surfaces of roads, and particularly bridges, they're using a form of shotcrete on the bridge deck for repairs. I gather that this technique of filling -- the shotcrete -- isn't working that well. That's basically what I'm saying. Is this the general procedure for doing repairs on bridge decks when there are things that need replacing -- or holes, I guess, in the concrete?

Hon. H. Lali: Generally, epoxy concrete is our preference. Staff are not aware of what the hon. member is actually mentioning here on the other stuff.

D. Symons: We can move on to maintenance and discuss, maybe, some things to do with that.

I gather the ministry is reducing the funding for maintenance by about $5 million this year. I'm wondering how he's planning to handle that. If you're taking $5 million out of a budget, you're taking $5 million of some sort of maintenance procedures out of the budget. So what's going to go? What service is not going to be supplied if you are taking that much money out of the budget?

Hon. H. Lali: It's not $5 million. Actually, we're currently in negotiations with the contractors, so there's been no figure attached thus far.

D. Symons: Then you would confirm that you're working with your given contractors now to reduce the amount of money that they are being paid for the work they are doing -- or are contracted to do -- in maintenance on the roads. Is that correct?

[1130]

D. Symons: I assume that in the process of negotiating reducing the amount of money they're paid for this, there will be some give and take on the work which these contractors are going to be expected to perform. I noticed over the last few years that we've had a few of the maintenance contractors actually go broke. In some cases the ministry has also had to give some of these contractors hardship funding because it was the only way of keeping them afloat, and you didn't have anybody else to take over the contract. So I suspect that the margin on which these contractors are working is fairly slim.

[ Page 13028 ]

Hon. H. Lali: We are looking for marginal reductions not only in the payment but also in the amount of work that would be done. But safety will not be compromised.

D. Symons: You may not compromise safety, but you can compromise the integrity of the highways of the province. I asked earlier -- and you'll see why I asked it -- about such things as ditching and brush control on the sides of roads. Particularly for the northern roads, if those ditches aren't done properly and the drainage is not correct and the moisture stays under the roadbed when the frost is coming. . . . Those things can create havoc with the northern roads. This is a real problem. So if the dampness in the soil gets under the highway and is not taken away, it's a problem. If you have brush growing, that's a real problem for the integrity of the highway. These are things which I believe. . . . I know that the mowing, the frequency of that being done, was cut back a few years ago as a saving for the Highways maintenance contractors. You've bargained away other things to keep the price down, but in the process, you're getting to the stage now where I think there are going to be some parts of the highway system that are going to suffer if you cut back anymore on some of those maintenance procedures that are performed around the province. It's a false economy.

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. member that we're not doing anything that's going to reduce the structural integrity of the road system. Of course that means that the surfaces of the roads, as well, are not going to be deteriorating; neither are we looking at making any kind of cuts that would attack the integrity of the drainage system. Actually, people in the north agree with the initiatives that the government has taken up.

I also want to point out that staff in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are experts in this field, and they have a fairly high level of understanding as we make these marginal reductions.

D. Symons: Well, I was in the Peace earlier this year, and certainly in the South Peace region, driving around the roads there, I could see areas where the ditches were in poor shape. It wasn't just a little piece here and there; it was generally the case. Particularly when you crossed the border into Alberta, you saw a fantastic difference in the quality of the highway itself and also in the quality of the maintenance or upkeep of that highway on the shoulders, on the ditches and in the grading of the sides of the road. Basically, on the B.C. side of the border you had a fairly deep ditch immediately adjacent to the road and not much shoulder at all; on the Alberta side you had a good shoulder and a gradual decline into the ditch and up the other side. It wasn't just sort of a trench dug, more or less, which tends to be a hazard to drivers if they slide off the road in the winter. So there's a huge difference. Just cross the road anywhere there, from B.C. into Alberta, and you'll find that there's a fantastic difference.

[1135]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

Hon. H. Lali: I just want to point out to the hon. member that I've been in the north of this province seven times since I've become minister. I've made seven trips up there to take a look at all regions of the north firsthand and talk to regional and district ministry officials and also to meet with mayors and first nations chiefs, as well as with councils, chambers of commerce and individual citizens -- to talk to the people in the north about their issues. They've actually made me quite well aware of all of the issues. That's why, shortly after I became minister, we increased the budget for rehabilitation expenditures and also capital expenditures up in the north. From '97 it was $23.8 million. In the first year I became minister, it went up to $64 million. In this year we're planning to spend in the vicinity of $88 million in the north. Obviously the commitment is there. We're showing it by making the investments that need to be made in all ridings -- in North Coast, Skeena, Bulkley Valley-Stikine, Prince George-Omineca, Prince George-Mount Robson, Prince George North, Peace River South and Peace River North as well.

I also want to point out, in particular, that there's a committee of local people set up called the Peace River rural roads committee. They work very closely with ministry staff up in the Peace River country to make sure that these kinds of problems are looked after. Under the northern roads initiative, we spent $22.5 million in the Peace area last year. This year we'll invest a further $22.7 million to make sure that the transportation and highway needs of the people up in the north are being looked after.

J. Dalton: I have two issues to address. One is -- I think the minister will agree -- an unfortunate circumstance that I know he's aware of, because I saw his face on the TV news last night. The other is actually just a brief question about some highway maintenance in my riding.

I guess the first thing I will ask -- and it's coming back to the maintenance questions that my colleague from Richmond Centre put on the record -- is: can the minister advise us as to the relationship between a highway maintenance contractor and the ministry? I'm thinking from the point of view of the annual maintenance program that is set out, for example, to deal with the Capilano Highway Services. When they have a project in mind -- whether they're going to go on to private property or otherwise -- what responsibility does the ministry have to oversee the activities of the highway maintenance contractor?

G. Robertson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: We have with us today Paul D'Arcangelo and the grade 7 students from Fort Rupert Elementary School.

[ Page 13029 ]

Hon. H. Lali: The maintenance contracts are five-year contracts. Obviously ministry officials can't be on site during the day-to-day activities of the maintenance contractor, although the ministry manages and oversees the program in its entirety. By law, I guess ultimately the ministry is responsible for work that is done on behalf of the ministry.

[1140]

I have other letters on file. I know the minister certainly has some of them. What's happening here, hon. minister, is that there's a crossfire between Capilano Highway Services and the ministry as to who's going to take responsibility for the now on record and clearly admitted by all parties trespass on Mr. Sinclair's property. It is totally unacceptable that the ministry ducks and bobs and weaves on this issue. I'll add one other point. Mr. Sinclair is this close to taking legal action. As far as I'm concerned, I would encourage him to do so, unless there is some favourable response and acknowledgment of liability in this issue.

Hon. H. Lali: I also want to point out that I sympathize with the landowner in question. I guess if it were my property, I'd be just as upset as the particular landowner, and I want to put that on the record. But I guess that at the same time, the contractor didn't go wilfully to make sure that they would make this kind of damage. It was an honest mistake. The contractor has a contractual responsibility for this, and the ministry will do everything it can to make sure the contractor is held responsible for this particular action.

J. Dalton: I don't need a response to this comment I'm going to put on the record, but clearly there is not only a responsibility of the ministry but a legal liability of the ministry. I could cite chapter and verse in court cases that will establish that, so if this minister or any other in this government thinks they can duck this private property issue or any others like it, they are dead wrong. That's the only point I need to make there.

The other thing I just want to ask is if the minister can advise us as to what the final cost is of the Capilano interchange, which I can say we're quite happy is now finished. Does the ministry have the records as to what the final cost of that interchange was?

Hon. H. Lali: We don't have that information right now, but we can supply it to the hon. member.

K. Krueger: Without wanting to take the House's time up on a lot of preamble -- we already tried to cover this twice yesterday -- there are huge concerns in Kamloops, in the Valleyview area, with over 200 businesses affected by the ministry's abrupt closure of the Comazzetto Road intersection, at least to exiting traffic wishing to head westbound.

There is a Super-Save gas station in the Campbell Creek industrial park which was completely cut off when the four-laning was finished on that stretch of road. People weren't expecting that. They weren't even allowed their right-in, right-out any longer, and their business dropped 70 percent overnight. Two hundred business people are frankly feeling panicky about what this government is up to. We thought we had a consultative process underway with the corridors project, and suddenly these things are happening.

I'm sure the minister has read the correspondence from Dr. McNiece, who has poured his life savings into a brand-new building that apparently is in the path of the ministry's plans. McDonald's, Tim Horton's, the Valleyview and East Business Association -- there is tremendous concern about what the government is up to. There are other options than closing all these intersections. The ministry has certainly spent huge funds on the mid-Island highway and other projects, and this is not a bottleneck compared to other issues along the Trans-Canada Highway. The minister wanted to wait till the staff who are present today were with him. What assurance can we offer the businesses in Valleyview about the ministry's plans?

[1145]

K. Krueger: Consultation includes listening and acting on the input that people give. That's something that this government doesn't ever seem to grasp. These consultations are seen to be sham processes because when they're over, the government tends to do what it said or indicated it wanted to do in the first place. It's very much the feeling that people have here, and I'm asking the minister now, on the record, what are the ministry's plans for the other intersections in Valleyview? Are there going to be other abrupt closures? Is the ministry not willing to consider other options or to put these plans on hold indefinitely, recognizing that we have an 80-kilometre speed limit through Valleyview? There are other sections of the Trans-Canada Highway in British Columbia that have 50-kilometre speed limits. So why is Valleyview being targeted, and will the minister assure my constituents -- the hundreds of businesses around Valleyview -- that this isn't going to happen to any other intersections?

Hon. H. Lali: Let me assure the member opposite that Valleyview is not being targeted. This was an issue that was long outstanding in terms of the safety of the travelling public. A thorough traffic analysis had revealed that while the accident rate along this section of the Trans-Canada Highway was

[ Page 13030 ]

K. Krueger: It doesn't seem that the minister wants to be any more forthcoming than that about the plans. Fair warning: there's going to be a very strong and hostile reaction from my constituents if anything like this happens at any of the other intersections. As I said earlier, there are other options. There's benchland between Valleyview and the Juniper subdivision where a bypass could be run. There are many other options.

The public can be understood when they say that government is completely out of touch with the realities of people who are trying to make a living in business and just trying to get by in the present economy. There's a sense that people in government and bureaucrats comfortably rely on their paycheques every two weeks, their paid vacations and their overtime and have no empathy for the grief that they cause. I think this government's behaviour in Valleyview is one example of that.

Another is a constituent of mine named Lois Huyder. She and her husband John own Humersong Gardens in Clearwater, next to Wells Gray Park. They decided to build a viewing garden -- something like a small version of Butchart Gardens -- next to Wells Gray Park. It's a tremendous commercial endeavour -- something the community is very supportive of.

[1150]

"Notwithstanding that the ministry's formal approval pursuant to section 54(2) of the Highway Act is not required, MOTH does have concerns regarding this development."

"Our problem arose when we approached the department of Highways. First they insisted that the half acre have a separate land title -- which means the buildings parking, septic and drain fields must all be on the commercial lot. Secondly, they require us to replace and pave the portion of road from the end of the existing pavement on Mountainview Road to our property line. Thirdly, we would also be required to construct and pave a cul-de-sac on our property for their use and dedicate this land to Highways. The cul-de-sac would end up in the middle of our parking lot. . . ."

Without wanting to take up a lot of the House's time on this issue, I'd like a personal commitment from the minister that he will look into this and rein in this bureaucracy and allow these people to proceed with their development on their land, which was already approved by the regional district government and the ALR.

I would also appreciate it if the minister would make a commitment to try and change the corporate culture in the ministry, if that's the right term for it -- whatever it is that has developed there that causes people to act like this. I always used to be really impressed with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways personnel that I worked with. There are a lot of very sincere long-term civil servants there. This sort of behaviour from them is just astonishing. We're all supposed to be working together to try and get the economy of British Columbia moving again, not stifling entrepreneurship like this.

Hon. H. Lali: On the first issue that the hon. member raised, about a bypass of Valleyview, that is actually one of the options that is being considered under the corridor management plan. Again I want to assure the member that there is no attempt by the ministry to try to ride roughshod over anybody; I want him to be able to understand that.

On the second issue of some of the constituency work that the hon. member is actually doing in the House on the Wells Gray Park issue, the development that he's talking about, obviously we don't have the details in front of us here. We'll certainly look into that particular issue.

At the same time, the hon. member made some comments and referred to this individual -- I understand that he or she may be an approving officer at the local level -- and has made some sort of a general sweeping comment about ministry staff -- how he's looked up to them in the past, but he feels that somehow they may be trying to stifle some economic development that's taking place in the local area.

The hon. member should recognize the great job that not just staff in this ministry but staff in the public service -- and the great amount of time and effort and energy -- put into their day-to-day work. You know, people in the public service obviously are not there simply because it's a job and they're making money hand over fist. I don't think they're making any more money than the average British Columbian. People who work for the public service do so because of a personal commitment that they have. It's because they want to be able to see that their community and the larger community of British Columbia is enhanced, and they want to be a part of that whole larger community.

[1155]

K. Krueger: Attitude is everything. The way a minister sets the tone and the way a government sets the tone determines the way, I believe, that staff are going to respond. Are they going to have a can-do attitude, where they help people with their projects? Or are they going to lay out roadblocks? The Ministry of Environment has been famous for laying out roadblocks. Al Raine and Nancy Greene, for example, have been trying for nine years at Cayoosh Resort to get a resort

[ Page 13031 ]

In the past I haven't seen this from Highways. I'm alarmed to see it in this case. I asked for the minister's personal commitment to deal with both any emerging attitude issues contrary to the spirit of economic development in British Columbia and this case in particular -- the case of Humersong Gardens. I wonder if the minister can give me that commitment.

The Chair: Minister -- noting the hour.

Hon. H. Lali: To the hon. member in answer to the last question: we don't have the details on this particular issue. Certainly once we have the details, we'll get back to the hon. member.

I also want to point out to the hon. member that in terms of the great work that public servants in general perform throughout this province, but specifically the staff of this ministry -- because that's the ministry that I'm responsible for -- I have a stack of letters. This is just a sampling of the stack of letters that I get from people congratulating local ministry staff for the great job that they're doing on behalf of British Columbians and on behalf of local constituents.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: The member says to table these. Obviously this is on public record, and the hon. member knows that. I get letters all the time from individuals and organizations that congratulate ministry staff for the great job that they do.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. I. Waddell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 10:12 a.m.

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

M. de Jong: I think the minister is aware. . . . I'm looking at a document, "Provincial Government Update on Treaty Negotiations." The most recent one I have is dated April 30, 1999. I thought it would be beneficial to examine at least some of the tables with a view to ascertaining the progress that has been made and the anticipated progress.

I should also say that one of the benefits we have now, having gone through the debate around the Nisga'a treaty, is to have gained something of an appreciation for what the government -- this government at least -- believes represents appropriate questioning around the negotiations that gave rise to that agreement. From the opposition perspective at least, we are mindful of the responses we obtained from the government on many occasions. Questions about the progress at the table -- in the Nisga'a round at least -- were largely moot, given that we had a final agreement. There is genuine interest on our part to see at this stage of the game how some of these negotiations are unfolding and where the government believes it will be, or where it would like to be, in the months ahead.

The first reference is the group of bands around the Vancouver area. The Katzie first nation is the first reference. I think one of the things I'd like to ask. . . . For each of the entries on the treaty update there is a population figure assigned. What's the reference for that figure? Is that a federal government figure? Is that the band's figure? Is that the province's figure?

Hon. G. Wilson: The Indian Act registry is the reference for the population number. Where the member will see two numbers. . . . For example, Kaska Dena -- you'll see that there are 800 to 1,200. Those are estimates. As the member may know, in the Kaska Dena situation there is some contention as to who is living on which side of the border, because they straddle the Yukon-B.C. border.

[1015]

The entry also confirms that the initial meeting took place in April of 1994, some five years ago. The table was declared ready in January 1999 -- January of this year. We're at stage 3. If I can just ask the minister. . . . The observation might be made that between the initial meeting and the table being declared ready, the passage of some five years represents a longer than normal period of time. What accounted for that delay?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that the Katzie first nation required a tremendous amount of internal capacity-building. They spent a good deal of time preparing themselves to come back to the table. We had had very few meetings up until recently.

M. de Jong: I wonder if the minister. . . . The population figure given is 370. Is this a. . . ? At the beginning of these

[ Page 13032 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: The provincial government is. . . . The position is that we would clearly look to a group, such as Katzie, as a candidate to integrate into a broader base of representation over the issues on governance and the provision of services. It's very difficult -- and we make this clear -- for the province to try to enter into discussions beyond stage 3 -- or in the stage 3 process toward AIP -- with first nation bands that are very, very small in number, for obvious reasons. If you are going to go to self-government, should every group of 200 or 190 or 300 or 320 people try to form self-government provisions?

I think the answer to that, clearly, is that they would be very expensive. There would be limited resources; there's quite frequently limited capacity for them to be able to do so. So we encourage those groups to come together in a broader alliance. We are starting to see that happen now around the province much more frequently -- that they will essentially enjoin some of their discussion with neighbouring first nations, so that they can look at a broader context of service deliveries and a broader context with respect to government provisions.

That, I think, is useful for two reasons. One is that I think one can put a more realistic set of proposals on the table with respect to issues of self-government. They frequently are living in fairly urban areas or certainly suburban areas, and therefore many of the services that they would require are already being delivered by non-aboriginal government. Therefore there's opportunity for them to take advantage of those services. Secondly, it's expensive. It's very expensive for 300 people -- and in this case 370 -- to try to get into long, protracted negotiations. We're very mindful of the fact that you can't allow these individuals to incur costs, because they borrow money to negotiate. You can't allow them to incur a debt that they simply can't recover in the final treaty.

[1020]

Hon. G. Wilson: The government doesn't propose to slot them in with anybody. I think that what we do, and our approach at the table, is to find what issues we can negotiate and discuss with Katzie that would be specific and relevant to Katzie. Frequently that doesn't include a broader and more wide-ranging discussion on self-government. Our view is that there may be a natural sort of connection with Stó:lo, but that's not for us to suggest. The Katzie are obviously going to have to sort out for themselves how they want to position themselves in the larger debate.

One of the reasons that there was such a gap between the initial meetings and the table-ready position is because they're doing that kind of internal work now to sort out where they want to try to fit themselves, recognizing -- and I believe they do recognize -- that there is a capacity problem and that they're going to have a difficulty in finding out how they're going to fit into a larger negotiated entity.

As to where these discussions are taking place, we're obviously having discussions with the First Nations Summit. There's also work being done by the Treaty Commission to look at how one can facilitate the broader base of regional negotiations, rather than have each of these individual bands negotiating independently.

M. de Jong: I may disagree with the minister to this extent. He alludes to a capacity challenge for the band -- in this case, the Katzie; the province also has a capacity problem. It's at a different level, but we've talked about the ability of the province to provide the resources necessary to manage 40 or 50 or maybe 60 tables. The minister, I think fairly, pointed out that the province would much prefer -- and I think the Treaty Commission wrote about this -- that initially there were an anticipated 30 tables that would be going.

So the capacity challenge exists for all of the parties. It's at different levels. I'm not sure I agree when the minister says that there is no role for the province to suggest and encourage a band like the Katzie to find a home within the broader grouping -- the Stó:lo, if that's the natural body within which they might find a home. I'm not sure that the province should abdicate any roles for itself in trying to persuade the band to do that.

We talk about the cost of negotiations. I don't know if the minister has the information. I'd be curious to know just how much the Katzie first nation has spent or borrowed to this point in the negotiating process.

[1025]

So we do look for what would be the sensible connections and how we might be able to sensibly fit various bands together in a broader alliance of negotiations. We certainly advocate that. We push on that when we find what is a practical and sensible approach. However, my initial comment was that we are not going to dictate to the Katzie who they have to negotiate with. We will advocate that they enjoin themselves in a negotiation with a broader-based table. There are histories that exist among first nations that make some alliances sensible and appropriate, and there are others that make them quite inappropriate and unworkable. We're not

[ Page 13033 ]

As for the amount of money that they borrow, that's really a matter between the Katzie and the Treaty Commission. It's not up to the province to release that information. If the Katzie want that information known, then the Katzie will make it known.

M. de Jong: Have the Katzie historically been a member of that grouping we would refer to as the Stó:lo nation?

Hon. G. Wilson: I think there are familial connections, to be sure. It's very loose. I don't think that you would say they have ever had a historical administrative or small "p" political connection, no.

M. de Jong: Maybe the minister can indicate, as best he knows, where the resistance comes from -- if there is resistance, and presumably there is -- and where the hesitancy derives from in consolidating these negotiations on the part of the Katzie themselves.

Hon. G. Wilson: First of all, because we are at such a preliminary stage on this particular table, we don't have any evidence that in the final analysis, they won't embrace a broader set of negotiations with Stó:lo. To this point, they have approached us with an interest in being able to negotiate at a table that is their own.

I would speculate -- and it's pure speculation -- that anytime a group who see themselves as a minority voice coming into a broader majority at a table. . . . They would be concerned, if they join, that the issues that are particularly relevant to them are going to be heard and be advanced with equal vigour. So I would speculate that it's purely a political decision on their part as to whether or not they believe that by joining the larger table, their interests would be as well protected. Because we're at a very preliminary stage now, I think it's too early to say whether or not they will eventually make a decision to go with the Stó:lo.

[1030]

As I understand it, the way the process presently works is that the federal government and the province provide those moneys to the Treaty Commission, and it is left exclusively to the Treaty Commission to determine how much of those funds will be made available to respective participants in the Treaty Commission process. If that is correct, then perhaps the discussion we need to be having relates to what representations the government, as one of three participants in that process, can bring to the Treaty Commission to be somewhat more insistent that participants -- bands -- consider options to individual negotiations.

Hon. G. Wilson: The member's correct when he suggests that it is the Treaty Commission that determines the resources, with an established set of criteria that the Treaty Commission uses. Within those established criteria, there is emphasis now placed. . . . It's becoming more so because of the obvious need to start to look at regional tables; it's becoming more directed toward integrating tables, so that we can have a fewer number of tables with a broader number of people represented. That's something that is favoured by the summit; it's favoured by the federal government; it's favoured by the province. I think the commission recognizes it also. Because it has its own constraints, obviously, with respect to the dollars that are provided, it recognizes that there is a more cost-effective way to negotiate if you can bring people together into a larger table that deals with a regional perspective.

It also makes a lot more sense on the ground, because it forces questions of overlap to be dealt with very quickly and very early. It also forces people in mapping to look at a larger regional land-selection process, which is helpful, because it doesn't. . . . One group who, because of their numbers and their geography, may otherwise be left out of the pack don't feel threatened that their potential land selection is going to be diminished by what's advancing ahead of them.

M. de Jong: I'm looking at the annual report for the Treaty Commission for '98, where they indicate the budget for financing negotiations as $30 million. I'm not sure that the Treaty Commission does appreciate the significance of this point, because in that annual report they are looking for $6 million to $7 million more. That is not sending the signal that I think the minister and I would like to send.

So maybe the question is this: from the province's point of view, how much of. . . ? I forget which STOB it's in. How much is the province sending to the Treaty Commission this year? What mechanism exists to track accountability for those funds that the province is providing? Do the province and therefore the opposition and the public have an opportunity to get a breakdown on the use of the moneys that the provincial taxpayers are sending to the Treaty Commission?

[1035]

The other thing that I'd think would. . . . I'd say there are two other issues that have forced the commission to really start to move toward the regional concept and the integration. One was the extent to which some first nations groups -- especially small groups, small in number -- were borrowing more than they were likely to get in the treaty. That causes huge concerns for everybody, particularly the federal government, which has a fiduciary obligation in this matter. They could even be vulnerable on the legal front.

Secondly, because we are now moving ahead very quickly on a number of fronts with the expedited process, there are a number of first nations who want to get into discussions and negotiations on some of the provisions of what might be seen as a final treaty, but maybe not to the

[ Page 13034 ]

So we don't want to shut the door to the progressive discussions around capacity-building and economic development simply because they're not ready to go to that final stage, which is the self-government stage. The commission is now working with both federal and provincial negotiators to make sure that those bands that want to move ahead have the opportunity to do that. But if they're going to do that, they have to do it in the context of a larger, umbrella set of negotiations. We're making good progress on that.

M. de Jong: The minister alluded at the commencement of these estimates to a band that he believed might fall into the category that he just described, where a small number of people may be incurring more in the way of debt than they can realistically expect to recover in a final settlement.

I might ask the question of whether the minister has information that would lead him to believe that the Katzie first nation might find themselves in a similar circumstance. But I think the more important question is: is the information available by which members of the Katzie band, first nations people, taxpayers, non-aboriginal British Columbians who are footing some of the bill can track this?

As we talked about earlier, that's a very disturbing trend. If we're going through this whole exercise and if, at the end of the day, all of the funds are going into the pockets of experts and lawyers, then we're no further ahead. Quite frankly, I don't think that'll happen. Candidly, I think that at the end of the day, we'll see what happened at another negotiation, when most of that debt was forgiven because of the desire and the pressure to seek a settlement.

[1040]

Hon. G. Wilson: On the first point, no, the Katzie is not one that may be in danger. Secondly, the Treaty Commission does keep track of this and may even, from time to time, have audits of expenditures. And thirdly, we are expediting the process. That has been my approach, and I have asked this ministry to track those costs so that we can make sure that in the expedited treaty process we can avoid the kind of concerns we might have with respect to this kind of issue. Hopefully, in the future we can avoid the kind of debt load that's been incurred by a number of the bands.

M. de Jong: Two questions arise out of that. If the Treaty Commission is auditing the amount of debt loads -- those expenses -- are they sharing that information with the provincial ministry which contributes to that pool of funds and those loans? In addition to that, if the ministry is keeping track of those figures as the minister has just indicated, is he prepared to release that information so that both aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians can track it with him?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that it is a condition of the loan agreement that the loan between the commission and the first nation -- and the information -- is managed on a confidential basis. Yes, we do get advised of financial status on the same basis -- that it is confidential to the commission, the Crown and the first nation. Thirdly, where the audits are undertaken, they don't audit the aggregate amount. They may in fact audit specific expenditures at various tables from time to time.

G. Plant: The minister referred to confidentiality around loans. Do the same terms of confidentiality apply where the Treaty Commission makes grants? My understanding is that it's only in grant-making that the province becomes concerned, because all the loans are federal.

Hon. G. Wilson: I'm advised that yes, the grant portion is covered by the same agreement and therefore would be covered by the same confidentiality clause.

[1045]

But there is something like an in terrorem threat by the Treaty Commission. If you don't provide more money, then there are serious consequences for the treaty process. I don't understand how the minister, as the minister responsible for administering the provincial responsibility in relation to grants, can respond to a threat like this, where the Treaty Commission is saying, "We need more money," but essentially, the way in which they spend it -- at least that part of it which is loan and grant funding -- is apparently veiled in confidence. I would think that if I were in the minister's position, I'd be at least frustrated by what appears to be a lack of accountability in relation to that issue.

Hon. G. Wilson: The expenditures of the Treaty Commission are known to the Crown. The confidentiality is with respect to the release of that information to the public on a table-by-table basis. The commission acts essentially as an advocate for the levelling of the playing field, and they will be heavily lobbied by first nations demanding more money. Therefore they will come and ask for more money from the federal and provincial governments. There's a limit to what the federal and provincial governments put forward. We do our own internal projections with respect to what we believe is an adequate cost to move tables along. We also have a very good understanding of which tables are advancing and which are not, and where we believe a concentration of resources will lead us to an AIP and where a concentration of resources will not produce it.

[ Page 13035 ]

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

G. Plant: Well, I'm not sure whether I'm less alarmed or more alarmed. But it may be that it's just that the nature of the alarm is different. I guess that from the point of view of the remarks I made earlier, there is at least some comfort in knowing that when the Treaty Commission comes to the province and asks for more money for funding first nations resources at the tables, the province is in the loop in terms of understanding how much money is proposed to be allocated to particular first nations. I understand that we. . . . The minister is also saying that the provincial government is very actively engaged on an ongoing basis in an assessment of where grant money could be most effectively allocated to make fair and equitable progress at the various tables. There is some comfort in that. It is, I suppose, though, still a matter of concern that there is a lack of public accountability around the expenditure of what is a fairly significant sum of money.

[1050]

Hon. G. Wilson: The reporting on public accounts is in an aggregate figure, but when a treaty is signed, a condition of the treaty will be that the loans are repaid. So at that point it will become public as to how much money has been loaned and how the repayment schedule will be made.

G. Plant: Which applies to the loans but not to the grants. I've been asking about the grants. Will there be disclosure about the grants?

Hon. G. Wilson: We're having a bit of a discussion as to what the content of the loan agreement is. In principle, I would think that any grant would be considered a cost of the treaty, and therefore it should be made public. I believe it should be made public. But we will check that out and make that information available to the member. I would certainly say that, on principle, that should be released to the public as a cost of the treaty.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's offer. I too was discussing the issues with my colleague here, at any rate, over the course of the last few minutes. I am still concerned, if not alarmed, about the fact that significant public dollars are being transferred by way of a grant on terms that are expressly confidential and therefore -- at least until such time as the treaty is negotiated -- immune from public scrutiny. Given the progress that's being made at the Katzie first nation table, for example, that may not be in our lifetime.

I did earlier say that I had some. . . . I may have said that I understood the rationale behind wanting this information to be kept confidential. I was probably less precise than I should have been in saying that. What I really mean is that I can sympathize with the situation of someone who is asking for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars from the government: that they don't really. . . . They may not want to have that amount made public. But the longer I think about it, the less able I am to convince myself that there is any meaningful public rationale around refusing to allow the light of day onto every single dollar being spent here. So I didn't want the moment to pass without putting that comment there.

[1055]

M. de Jong: Maybe the other thing we've done is alerted the Treaty Commission, which I know generally reviews these debates, that there is a level of concern, at least on the part of the opposition, that they are seemingly proceeding in a way that shows some disregard for the people who are ultimately responsible -- by that, I mean the taxpayers who are funding the process.

Just before I turn the questions over to my colleague from Quilchena, who has some questions about the Musqueam table and the situations there. . . . We've used Katzie as something of an example. Should they review this, I hope that they won't be left with the impression that they've been picked on. But they have the dubious distinction of being the first band on the list that the ministry provided to us.

Hon. G. Wilson: Musqueam second.

M. de Jong: And the Musqueam second.

And they also had the added feature of being one of those smaller bands that we resolved to consider earlier on in these estimates.

I want to ask about the overlap situation, in light of the discussion that we had during the Nisga'a debate and the fact that we learned from that debate that we should not -- and cannot -- have confidence that the stated policy or stated desire to have overlaps resolved prior to the ratification of a treaty will be followed. So the specific question with respect to the Katzie is: are there identified overlapping claims? If so, with which bands?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I can't say with certainty which of the bands there would be overlap with, but I can say that overlap is clearly an issue. I would speculate that Squamish, Burrard, Stó:lo and possibly Tsawwassen may all have overlap issues. I would need to have a map in front of me to see how that would be affected. But I can give the member some assurance that on the matter of overlaps, the province is making enormous progress in the Treaty Commission process through the various stages.

[ Page 13036 ]

[1100]

Hon. G. Wilson: The member has our commitment that we would not sign a treaty that would grant exclusive rights in an overlap area. It is the position of the government to effectively deal with overlaps prior to the completion of a treaty.

G. Plant: One could argue that the Nisga'a final agreement was consistent with that commitment, because the minister has expressed himself fairly carefully with his statement that the government won't sign a treaty that grants exclusive rights. But at the same time, there is still very clearly at least one unresolved overlap issue in respect of Nisga'a, because there is a lawsuit.

When the minister expressed himself in the last answer, was he saying that in practical terms there would de a real resolution of the overlap issue? Or was he giving himself the opportunity to adapt the Nisga'a final agreement approach to the Katzie or lower mainland overlaps if the need arises?

Hon. G. Wilson: The practical reality is that given the complexities of the overlaps, especially in the lower mainland, we simply could not proceed to finalizing a treaty prior to having those overlaps resolved.

G. Plant: While my colleague began this particular discussion with Katzie, from the minister's first answer it was apparent to me, at any rate, that we were talking about the whole pattern of overlaps in the lower mainland. That's what the minister is talking about -- the lower mainland at large, which I would have to say is a significant commitment by government. I'd go so far, frankly, as to say that it's a reassuring one, if it's in fact honoured. I've spend a little bit of my own time in past lives trying to come to terms with at least the Musqueam-Squamish-Tsawwassen-Burrard overlap. I know less of the Katzie circumstances. But if the minister is saying that that problem, with all of its complexities, will be resolved before the province signs a treaty with any of those groups, then I think that's a statement that members of the public will find reassuring.

Hon. G. Wilson: That would be a prerequisite.

M. de Jong: A last question with respect to our friends the Katzie. The notation on this document indicates that there haven't been any stage 3 meetings scheduled, insofar as the Katzie themselves haven't proposed any meetings. Will the next meeting occur only if and when the Katzie request one?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes. When they tell us they're ready to meet, we'll meet.

[1105]

Since this issue first arose -- really, I guess, when it came to a head in December of last year -- I have been very careful, in terms of my conversations and my written communications, to make it clear that I do not see this as an area in which the provincial government is culpable. I think that the situation that the leaseholders are facing is very serious. There are certainly some enormous personal financial tragedies taking place, and the solution to those, I believe, rests with the federal government -- specifically with the federal minister.

So my efforts have been to try to encourage, from the point of view of the provincial government and the provincial Legislature, a cooperative approach to putting pressure on the federal government to address these areas. I know that the minister has, at least in private conversations, had some very innovative ideas in terms of where that might go in solving it in the future. I'm wondering if he's able to share any of those thoughts with us on the record.

Hon. G. Wilson: I think the member will know that any discussions around solutions require the full participation of the federal government and the Musqueam band themselves. To the extent that the province can engage those parties in finding some meaningful solution on the question of the land, my efforts are continuing. I believe there may be possibilities to come up with resolutions that deal with a win-win for all of us, and that has to do with provisions of land.

In the negotiations, obviously one of the things we're looking at is what component of land may be available to the Musqueam -- what Crown lands may be available -- and how there may be a possibility for us to engage in a land exchange that would provide some kind of security or fee simple ownership potential for people who now sit in the Musqueam Park lands and, in that process, provide economic opportunities for the Musqueam that would therefore realize for them the kind of revenues they currently get off the land. In essence, that's been the thrust of some ideas that I've put forward.

The federal government has been somewhat less forthcoming in their desire to discuss this. I anticipate having some meetings with the Musqueam shortly to continue to pursue this avenue. If we can get the federal government to recognize that there may be some creative solutions that will provide a win-win for all of us in this process, I'm happy to do that. I am putting a considerable amount of energy toward it. I'm not getting a particularly warm response from Ottawa, who basically take the view that this is a federal matter: it has no

[ Page 13037 ]

C. Hansen: I appreciate those comments very much. The issue that the leaseholders are facing is a frustration that while the federal government may accept the fact that there is not a provincial angle or provincial ramification to the story. . . . I think they would be much happier if the federal government truly did accept that responsibility and address the concerns that are before them.

In terms of the minister talking about the possibility of land exchanges, is that in the context of addressing this particular issue, or is it in a broader context of treaty negotiations overall? If this idea of establishing fee simple ownership for what is now the Musqueam leaseholds were to proceed, is that something that will take as much time as the overall treaty negotiation takes if it is to proceed, or does the minister see an opportunity to pursue this outside of the treaty negotiations?

[1110]

So the short answer is no, we wouldn't have to wait until the end of the treaty to actually implement this. But in order for us to move in this new direction, it is going to take a fairly significant change with respect to the willing-seller, willing-buyer purchase of land and the banking of land toward final settlements between the federal government and the province. There's going to have to be some kind of an understanding as to how those costs are going to be absorbed and ultimately put on the table as part of a finalized package for the Musqueam.

We are exploring those ideas, not just for the Musqueam but provincewide, because the more we get into urban-based treaties, the more innovative we're going to have to get about how we deal with these things. I believe there is a solution there. I believe it could be implemented fairly quickly. If the federal government could only see the wisdom of doing this and if the Musqueam are prepared to engage -- and I think they may be -- I think there is a resolution that would provide everybody with a better deal.

C. Hansen: I'm delighted that some innovative work is going into this. I applaud the minister's efforts in that regard.

With regard to the situation that all of the leaseholders are facing in terms of property taxation, I guess the provincial involvement in this goes back to 1991, when the enabling legislation was passed by this Legislature. That is another issue that is obviously foremost in the minds of not just the Musqueam Park residents but also the Salish Park residents. I'm wondering if the minister sees anything that may give them some comfort in terms of the issue of taxation without representation -- the vulnerability that they feel right now in terms of what may happen with their annual taxation.

Hon. G. Wilson: The difficulty, as the member will know, is that because this is predominantly a federal jurisdiction, we have a very limited amount of opportunity to do something. However, where I can give some comfort, I think, is to those people who are on leased lands where the B.C. Assessment Authority has been the contracted agency to do the assessments. There are appeal processes now that are engaged in those assessments. I think there is some work that can be done there.

I have long taken the position -- and I'm asking for some work to be done on this; it isn't within my ministry, so I'm having to engage members otherwise -- that in establishing assessed values of leased lands, you can't use fee-simple-owned lands as a comparable value. What you are really assessing is the improvement on the land, because you don't own the property. Similarly, there are problems with respect to those who have leased land on waterfront where there's an established right-of-way in advance of their property which is held by the first nation. Yet they are being taxed as fee-simple waterfront property. I believe that to be wrong, and I've made that very clear over the last number of years. I am now in a position to have those issues reviewed, and I look forward to that review. I do think that on the primary assessed value of properties that are on leased land, the comparable values that are being used are fee-simple-owned land. I think that's an inequity.

C. Hansen: I think that concludes my questions. I'd like to put the offer on the table that anything that we as the official opposition can do to assist the minister in putting pressure on the federal government to deal with these issues. . . . We will certainly assist the minister and do what we can to work with the leaseholders.

M. de Jong: I wonder if we can go to the Burrard first nation table. Just to summarize the information I have, the documentation describes the band as having a population of 331 individuals. Initial meetings took place in April 1994. The table was declared ready in August 1995. A framework agreement was signed in March '97 -- actually, over two years ago. We're in stage 4, where the attempt is being made to negotiate agreement-in-principle.

I am interested in hearing from the minister on this particular table because he has, during this estimates discussion, alluded to the evolving discussions that have taken place around the issue of self-government for first nations of relatively smaller size. There has been reference to the discussion that is happening at the table around governance topics. It would be helpful, at this stage of the game, to get an update from the minister as to where those discussions, particularly around governance issues, are presently at.

[1115]

[ Page 13038 ]

M. de Jong: From the province's point of view, then, does that model preclude the kinds of transfers of jurisdiction in the manner in which we saw, for example, in the Nisga'a model? Are we therefore talking necessarily about a purely delegated authority that would require interaction with the Municipal Act? I'm trying to wrap my head around how any transfer of jurisdiction would occur, from the province's point of view.

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, I'm advised that, to date, we haven't really progressed to the source-of-authority question, if I can use that term. We've only progressed to the point where we're talking about program delivery. I think that a transference similar to Nisga'a is not on the table here, because they're not asking for it -- in the same manner that Sechelt didn't establish school boards and hospital boards.

So at the moment I think it's safe to say that the progress has happened on delivery of service and integration of that delivery with existing mechanisms of self-government. We'll have to get to the point where we talk about the source of authority, which is an issue that'll be discussed at the table.

M. de Jong: Well, that's somewhat helpful. If we then restrict our discussion to program delivery, I guess the question that arises at this point is: what does the province contemplate as representing realistic areas for involvement by the band, recognizing that we are dealing here with a band the size of 331 individuals? For example, is the province approaching these discussions with a view to facilitating first nations -- Burrard band -- involvement in policing? Is that something that the province contemplates existing at the conclusion of these negotiations?

[1120]

M. de Jong: We talk about children and families. . . . I apologize; these are admittedly disjointed questions. But if we consider the general interest that first nations people have in playing a role in decisions around things like adoptions, how does involvement in that area of public policy arise within the model that is being developed here?

Hon. G. Wilson: Well, the discussions on adoption have actually not progressed to any kind of final stage of discussion. Where we have, however, had general levels of discussion. . . . The Tsleil-Waututh are interested in making sure that children are adequately and properly tracked through the system so that they have input, that their issues and concerns are adequately and properly addressed and that, where possible, their membership is maintained. I think that is consistent around the province. First nations want a much more direct influence with respect to the whole aspect of aboriginal children and how they are properly placed and adequately looked after.

M. de Jong: Maybe I can ask this: is it fair for me to draw the conclusion that insofar as negotiations for urban-based first nations, Burrard is one of those to which significant resources are presently being devoted? And when I occasionally hear the Premier and the minister talk about their hopes that a number of final agreements and agreements-in-principle will be available for review before the end of this calendar year, is the Burrard table included in that group?

Hon. G. Wilson: Tsleil-Waututh is one of the 15 mandated tables, to be sure. I think that this fall is a little bit optimistic, but I think there may be possibilities to be in an AIP next spring.

[1125]

Hon. G. Wilson: My advice -- and it comes not just from Tsleil-Waututh but from their neighbouring bands -- is that there is active discussion around the resolution on the overlap question and that they're confident that there'll be an and an agreement.

M. de Jong: Is the minister prepared to extend the commitment he offered a few moments ago with respect to the discussion we had around the Katzie and the lower mainland overlap situation? Is he prepared to extend that commitment on the part of the government of British Columbia with respect to ratification of a final treaty to the Burrard table?

Hon. G. Wilson: Yes.

M. de Jong: There is a workshop referenced here that occurred only a week or two ago, which I am curious to know about. Was that a negotiating session, or was that something different? Was that something that was designed to promote public involvement, or was it possible to say at the conclusion of it that negotiations designed to move towards an AIP had progressed as a result of that two-day workshop?

Hon. G. Wilson: No, I don't think it would be fair to conclude that we're closer to an AIP. The workshop was designed to be inclusive, making sure that local government interests were respected and generally that the public was informed and had input.

M. de Jong: I guess that was my question -- to understand the terminology better. A workshop is something different than a main table discussion. At a workshop there is participation by the three negotiating teams. Is that the case? Are they interacting with one another? Are they negotiating, or are they simply providing information to third parties? I guess that's the essence of the question.

[ Page 13039 ]

M. de Jong: When I see the entry that public information will be identified as a priority for the new year, what does that mean from the province's point of view? I can imagine that the first nation will have some interest, on an ongoing basis, in dealing with their membership and their neighbours. What does public information, as referred to in this document, mean -- insofar as the province is concerned?

Hon. G. Wilson: What it means is that we advertise main-table meetings so that the public is aware it's going on. We get as much information out as possible. In the case of the Pacheedaht-Ditidaht, as the chapters are finalized, those chapters are distributed so that a broad base of public review can be made, and to have open and available to the public the three main negotiators so that the public has an opportunity to fully understand the process and to engage in the process. Using the Pacheedaht-Ditidaht example, I can tell you that there has been tremendous public input and therefore tremendous public support.

[1130]

Hon. G. Wilson: We have some tentative dates set up, but there's no confirmation, pending finalization of the band elections.

M. de Jong: Let me ask this question, returning to a theme that we explored earlier. The Yale first nation, I think, is very much a part of the Stó:lo group. There are some internal politics at work there -- purely internal politics. I think one can almost conclude that there are some personalities involved that preclude a closer working relationship between the Yale band and the Stó:lo nation and that that is largely responsible for it being embarked in separate negotiations. I note the reference here: "Yale community interested in ways to accelerate treaty process for efficiency and cost-effectiveness." Well, I think the minister and I can both think about a pretty logical way to do that. Part of that might be putting some of those personalities aside and consolidating in a way that makes sense from every conceivable perspective -- heritage, culture, history -- so that. . . . I'm sure the minister gets frustrated, but I do as well, when a first nation professes that desire and yet appears intent on ignoring the obvious mechanism by which efficiency could be obtained. It says that the Yale first nation is interested in ways to accelerate. . . . If they've got some ideas that they've passed on to the minister that he can share with us, I'd love to hear them. But I'd also love to hear that they are being reminded on an ongoing basis that there is an obvious way to garner some efficiencies that they appear unwilling to avail themselves of.

Hon. G. Wilson: We have made the point time and time again that they are very small and need to fit into a larger framework. We are committing very few resources. They are currently in court with Canada, and that's sort of brought things to a bit of a halt.

M. de Jong: What is the status of that litigation? Are there dates around which we might see some resolution?

Hon. G. Wilson: I'll have to provide the member with the specifics on it. It has to do with a specific claim. It's a matter that is exclusive between the Yale and Canada.

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, shall the vote pass?

Vote 10 approved.

Hon. G. Wilson: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:35 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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