2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 19, Number 13
[ Page 15481 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'm delighted to introduce to the House a group of 24 students from Glenlyon-Norfolk School in my riding of Victoria-Beacon Hill. They are accompanied by the director of the junior girls school, Charles Schneider; their teacher, Mrs. Heather Lapper; and one of the parents, Eloise Spitzer. These 24 girls are all members of their student council, and they are in the House today as representatives of their classes to study the democratic process at this level. Would you please join me in welcoming them all to our assembly today.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to introduce a couple of special visitors today. First, I'd like to re-welcome Steve Thorlakson, who's the mayor of Fort St. John and president of the UBCM -- the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Mr. Thorlakson has been instrumental in working with me and my ministry on an item that we'll be discussing at greater length after introductions today. Mr. Thorlakson is joined by Harriet Permut, a senior policy analyst with UBCM. Would the House please make them welcome.
C. Clark: I want to add a special introduction, along with the Minister for Children and Families, for the school group, which includes my cousin Emily Reid. I hope the House will make her especially welcome today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us today in the gallery are two good friends of mine from Quesnel, Steve and Carolyn Hilbert. Among other things, Steve Hilbert and I have been canoeing partners for a quarter of a century, going down the rivers of the central interior -- including last weekend, when we spent a delightful day on the Willow River. Even though he is responsible for overturning our canoe last Saturday and dumping me into the waters of the Willow, I bear him no ill will and will probably even go canoeing with him again. I'd ask the House to make them most welcome.
C. Hansen: There are 19 grade 11 students from Point Grey Secondary School that have made the journey across the waters from the continent this morning. They are accompanied by their teacher, Sue Bailey. I hope the House will make them welcome.
D. Streifel: The last time I stood in the House on an occasion like this, the member for Okanagan-Penticton sent me a note and said that my wife Linda deserves an award. I happen to agree. She's here with us again today. Would the House make her welcome, please.
T. Stevenson: In the House today are 20 college-level students in Canadian studies visiting from Western Washington University in Bellingham. They're here to place some emphasis on comparative government, parliamentary procedure and local government. Will the House please make them welcome.
[1410]
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.
Hon. C. McGregor: I move the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. C. McGregor: I'm pleased to present the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000. It was three years ago that this government made a commitment to recognize local government as an independent, responsible level of government through a protocol of recognition. Bill 14 is a part of our ongoing Municipal Act reform initiative, which is designed to modernize our system of local government to make it meet the needs of councils and communities across British Columbia. This bill substantially completes the legislative plan that the UBCM and the provincial government created. Its key features are to give local government more autonomy and flexibility while ensuring that citizens are provided with appropriate opportunities to participate in local decision-making.
Specifically, Bill 14 includes changes such as amendments to provide more flexible land use planning models for local governments while enhancing public consultation. It enhances accountability measures for improvement districts, consolidates and clarifies the counterpetition process and changes the name of the Municipal Act to the Local Government Act. In addition, it includes significant changes for regional districts by providing broad service powers and regulatory powers. It creates opportunities for greater flexibility in entering into service arrangements between member municipalities in electoral areas, based on local needs. It also enables dispute resolution among service partners. Another component of the bill amends the Islands Trust Act to encourage the retention of natural area values on private lands within the trust area, by linking a commitment to maintain significant natural areas to reduced property taxes.
I am very pleased that president Thorlakson has joined us in the House today for the introduction of this important legislation. I wish to thank him again and the UBCM executive, their staff and the many citizens who have participated in the important process of consultation on Municipal Act reform. Their efforts have made this legislation a model for modern governance.
Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENT AND
VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT
G. Campbell presented a bill intituled Public School Parent and Volunteer Protection Act.
G. Campbell: We all know that parental involvement is a critical ingredient to the education of any young person. It's
[ Page 15482 ]
important that we send a message to parents across the province that they are invited to be part of the public school system. We know that when parents are involved, children do better in school; they achieve higher results. We know that their behaviours are different. Their attitudes about the public education system generally and education are improved. It is important to note that parental involvement is a critical ingredient to making sure that our children have the education that they deserve.
This bill amends the School Act to state that a parent of a student attending school is entitled to provide volunteer services at the school, provided that those volunteer services will not result in the displacement of existing staff. The bill does not affect the role of existing support staff or in any way undermine the services that they provide. Rather, it guarantees the rights of parents as volunteers to participate in the public education and that those rights are fully protected. Our children are our future. Our obligation to them is to be sure that they get the best education possible.
[1415]
On behalf of students, parents, teachers, administrators and educators across British Columbia, I urge all members of the House to join me in passing this crucial legislation. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Motion approved.
Bill M202 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
PROVINCIAL FORENSIC
PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court says that criminals are regularly being released into the community without psychiatric assessment. He says that judges have been warning the provincial government about this problem for ten years, and "it just seems to be getting worse." My question is to the Premier. If he and his government have known about this problem for ten years, why does it keep getting worse?
Hon. A. Petter: I have met with the Chief Judge and spoken with him since becoming Attorney General. In the course of those discussions, this issue was not raised. However, I have gone back and found that the issue was raised by the Chief Judge in 1997 on behalf of the judiciary. At that time there was a response from government to the Chief Judge, outlining some very substantial measures that were taken in response to the concerns he raised. An additional $3 million was added for incremental operating costs with respect to the forensic psychiatric services division. A further $650,000 was added for incremental costs to retain 45 beds at Riverview, and the ministry also provided $500,000 to enhance response time for court assessments.
Again, notwithstanding times of restraint, resources have been added. Last year an additional $2.1 million was allocated to hire 30 liaison officers to assist in the coordination of forensic services.
So the short answer is yes, this has been a concern. It's a concern that has been addressed and has been communicated back to the Chief Judge. There are never enough resources to deal with all of the pressures in the system. But I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that those requests that are mandated through the Criminal Code are responded to within the mandated time. For those that are sought by defence counsel outside of the Criminal Code mandate, efforts are made to respond in a timely way. But the pressures are great, and government is adding resources because of that. Never will the resources be adequate to meet all of the pressures, but certainly the commitment has been there.
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplemental.
G. Campbell: Obviously the commitment has not been sufficient. The Chief Judge has told the government and has told the public that the matter continues to get worse. This surely cannot simply be a problem of resources, when you look at where this government has allocated its resources over the last few years. We need to be sure, and the public needs to be sure, that the appropriate resources are there both to provide for assessments and to provide for the proper psychiatric beds to make sure that this kind of activity is in fact improving, not getting worse.
For ten years we've been told, the Premier was told and the government has been told that this problem has been there; it has been getting worse. I would like to know from the Premier today what it is that he intends to do to ensure that the actions are taken -- not the words spoken, but the actions taken -- to help mitigate this problem for the future.
Hon. A. Petter: Too often, unfortunately, hon. Speaker, the follow-up questions indicate a disregard for the previous answer.
Actions have been taken, and actions continue to be taken in respect of the pressures within our court system. I think it's a little hard to take from the Leader of the Opposition, who talks continually about the need to cut costs of government and to engage in large tax cuts -- about the need to add services
[1420]
G. Plant: The Attorney General talks about the action that the government claims it has taken. But the fact is that the problem is not remaining the same; it's not as though we are making progress. The evidence is that the problem is getting worse.
The Attorney General referred to conversations and communications with the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court. My understanding is that there was in fact correspondence between the Chief Judge and senior officials in the Ministry of Attorney General as far back as 1997 dealing with this problem and that the Attorney General has copies of this correspondence. I would ask if he will agree to table those docu-
[ Page 15483 ]
ments in the Legislature this afternoon in order that we can ensure that the public is properly informed of the extent of the problem.
Hon. A. Petter: In fact, the most recent correspondence on this particular matter, hon. Speaker, was in 1997, when the issue was raised and a response was provided to the Chief Judge, which outlined the steps that were taken. I'd be happy to table that correspondence for the benefit of the member.
It does demonstrate that very specific action was taken, resources were added to the system and an invitation was provided to the Chief Judge to continue to work on these issues. And we will continue to work on them. This is an issue in which I think -- I hope -- no party is trying to seek political gain. It is an issue in which we need to work on to try to provide the resources necessary.
The report I received from my ministry to date suggests that the resources are there when forensic reports are required pursuant to Criminal Code provisions. When they are sought by defence counsel on a less formal basis, then it's a matter of prioritizing resources and trying to deliver those resources in a way that meets the demands and the needs. Those are tough calls, but we've added resources to enable that to happen, and we will continue to try to meet those pressures.
The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental.
G. Plant: But the orders and the decisions are being made by judges, and yet the resources are not in place to provide the reports in a timely way. So the question is: what has the government done? Maybe the government took action in 1997, and maybe the government has done nothing since 1997. The problem isn't getting better; it's not even as though the government is maintaining the status quo. The problem, we are told, is getting worse.
I also understand that the Attorney General is committed to conducting some sort of internal review or investigation into this matter. Knowing that something's going to happen inside the ministry is a step, but it's certainly not far enough.
Will the Attorney General commit to ensure that the work product of this review that he has committed to undertake and all of the supporting documents are in fact made public and that the review will be conducted in a timely way, so that the public interest -- the public interest in knowing whether the system of justice is doing its job -- is satisfied by openness and accountability?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure what review the member is referring to. But I have certainly reviewed the matter myself, and I'm quite happy to report to him right now.
The letter that was sent to the Chief Judge in 1997 very clearly indicates -- and I'll quote from it -- what action was taken. Let me read from the letter from the deputy minister to the Chief Judge:
Furthermore, it is not correct to say that further resources have not been added since then. Last year the ministry increased services again. An additional $2.1 million was allocated to hire 30 liaison officers to assist in the coordination of forensic services. So there is the evidence; there is the demonstration. Action was taken in '97; action has been taken since. Despite the continued pressure from the opposition and others to cut government services, government services have been increased in this regard."As a consequence of this, the Ministry of Health committed resources in 1997-98 for the following program enhancements: (1) the opening of the new institute in April 1997, with a capacity of 180 beds -- the incremental operating costs are $3 million; (2) the retention of the 18 cottages at Riverview will allow for the full use of the remand ward of 45 beds -- the incremental cost is approximately $650,000; (3) additional psychiatric sessions, equating to 3.25 FTEs annualized, to facilitate an enhanced response time for assessments -- incremental cost approximately $500,000."
[1425]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston with a further supplemental question.
G. Plant: My question for the Attorney General is this: is Chief Judge Metzger right or wrong? The Chief Judge of the Provincial Court says that the problem is getting worse. The minister talks about the money that's being spent. The problem is getting worse. What is the Attorney's view on this? Is the problem -- the shortage of facilities and resources, the inability to deliver timely psychiatric assessment reports -- getting worse or getting better?
Hon. A. Petter: One point that the Chief Judge did make yesterday, which I think is something we should all keep in mind, is that we should not use these kinds of issues to try to pursue political gain in respect of court matters.
The fact is that the Chief Judge has a concern, which I think we all need to take seriously, about the increased presence in the court system of those who have mental illness and the need to deal with the pressure that places upon the court system. What is undeniable, however, is that this government has responded to that pressure by adding resources. The last time the Chief Judge raised this matter with the government, to my knowledge, a response was provided that showed that such resources were being provided. And even since then, resources have been provided again. That seems to me to speak very loudly to the concern that this government has for the concerns of the Chief Judge and this government's share.
OUT-OF-PROVINCE
MEDICAL INSURANCE COVERAGE
J. Weisgerber: My question is for the Minister of Health. British Columbians travelling outside of this country routinely purchase additional medical insurance coverage. But very, very few British Columbians or Canadians believe it's necessary to purchase additional coverage for travel within Canada.
Very recently a constituent of mine had the misfortune to have a heart attack in the Yukon. He was taken to the Whitehorse General Hospital and then sent by air ambulance to Vancouver. He's since received a bill for $12,000 for the ambulance. Neither B.C. Medical nor Yukon Health will give him any assistance with that bill; they have in fact reinforced that the bill is his responsibility. Does the minister believe that a British Columbian travelling outside of this province should pay $12,000 to be flown back to Vancouver for treatment of a heart attack?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question, and I will take the question on notice, look into it and get back with a thorough explanation as to what's happened and any options that are available to us in terms of dealing with the case.
[ Page 15484 ]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River South has a supplemental question.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to try a new question with the minister.
The Speaker: Yes, it would be a new question.
J. Weisgerber: Listening to Allan Rock and listening to the government side of this House talk about health care and the Canada Health Act would cause one to believe that you could travel within this country without having to worry about purchasing health care coverage. In a letter to me dated May 8, the ministry stated two things: "Any B.C. resident who has the misfortune to become ill or involved in an accident outside of the province and require ambulance transport should not expect any assistance." The letter goes on to say -- and this is a direct quote from the May 8 letter: "The purchase of out-of-province medical insurance coverage is recommended to all British Columbia residents who travel outside of our province for any reason." Does the minister believe that people travelling to Alberta for a weekend should stop at their travel agent's and pick up medical insurance before making the trip?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll resist the temptation to comment on Bill 11. But I will say that the member raises a very important point, and it is one that I have raised with Minister Rock and will raise again with Minister Rock, in terms of where we go in health care in this country, in the debate that is currently taking place. And that is: how do we deal with, for example, the issue around rural and northern communities not just here in British Columbia but in the provinces and territories right across the country? We need to have a national strategy and approach to dealing with issues such as transportation and the ability to Medivac people where required, so that we can look at what is covered by the Canada Health Act and ensure that there's not a financial inconvenience for the people not only of this province but of the country.
I have raised the issue with Minister Rock, and I will be raising the issue with him again. It is very much an important part of what we're trying to do in addressing the pressures facing medicare.
[1430]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River South has another question.
J. Weisgerber: The members across the way apparently have short memories. I heard a little titter of laughter at the reference to Alberta. Members might recall that two years ago, my friend from Peace River North raised the issue of an Alberta resident in Fort St. John who had the misfortune to have an accident and be required to fly to Edmonton for treatment. That lady received a $6,000 invoice for air transport. And guess what. Alberta picked up the tab for their citizen injured in British Columbia and flown to Edmonton.
Will the minister commit today to do as good as Ralph Klein and the Albertans do for their citizens and pay my constituent the $12,000 it cost him to get flown to Vancouver for health care?
The Speaker: Members, question period is over. I will ask the minister to give a very brief answer.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I've told the hon. member that I will look into the specific case. I have also told the hon. member that in terms of an overall strategy of how we deal with issues such as transportation in northern and rural communities not only in this province but in other provinces and territories, I have raised that with Minister Rock and will continue to raise that.
On a final note, hon. Speaker, I will stack up our health care system against Alberta's any day of the week.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to table a letter that was sent to Chief Judge Metzger on August 1, 1997, from the then deputy minister in the Ministry of Attorney General.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Doyle: I ask leave to present reports.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Doyle: I rise to table the annual report of Forest Renewal B.C. for the year 1998-99 and also the annual report of the Forest Practices Board for 1999.
Hon. D. Lovick: In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we shall be discussing and debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 10.
[1435]
McLEOD LAKE INDIAN BAND
TREATY No. 8 ADHESION
AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACT
(second
reading)
Hon. D. Lovick: I rise today to move second reading of the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act. That's rather a mouthful, and perhaps I ought to begin by simply explaining that title. The agreement settles a lawsuit by allowing the band to adhere to Treaty 8, the 100-year-old treaty from which the band members had hitherto been excluded. This agreement was ratified by the band, by British Columbia and by Canada and became effective on March 27, 2000.
The legislation we're introducing today is required to assist the province in implementing certain obligations which are set out in the agreement. In other words, the legislation is the mechanism for implementation in support of the agreement.
Treaty No. 8 is a historic treaty. It focuses on a land and monetary settlement. It is quite different from modern-day
[ Page 15485 ]
treaties such as the Nisga'a treaty or what was sketched out in the Sechelt agreement-in-principle. This adhesion settlement agreement includes a number of key elements that we believe will create a positive and stable climate for investment not only for the McLeod Lake Indian band but also for surrounding communities and for the forest sector.
Let me sketch out very briefly, if I might, the basic terms of the agreement. First, the terms include the transfer of approximately 19,180 hectares of Crown land from the province of B.C. to be held by Canada as reserve land. Note that it's an adhesion to an existing treaty and therefore reserve land. As stated in Treaty 8, eligible members of the McLeod Lake Indian band have an option, however. They have the option to select either 128 acres of reserve land or 160 acres -- a quarter section -- of land in severalty, which would be held in fee simple. The band's reserve land entitlement will be reduced by 128 acres for each member who elects to receive land in severalty.
The surveying of lands intended for reserve use will begin this summer. The transfer of these lands will take place over three years. The band will receive $11.65 million from Canada to cover specified treaty benefits and negotiation costs. British Columbia will contribute $1 million for negotiation costs. British Columbia will also provide an estimated $25 million for stumpage fees on Crown lands that will become reserve lands. This payment is for stumpage fees, I should point out, that have been collected by the province since October 1995. At that time, the lands were under injunction, and British Columbia was required to harvest trees due to a beetle infestation. Accordingly then, we are simply making payment for those lands, which were subsequently determined to be part of the McLeod Lake Indian band's territory.
I want to say something briefly about consultation, if I may. During negotiation of this agreement -- albeit we're talking about a 100-year-old treaty -- the province consulted with local government, with stakeholders and with communities -- a very significant consultation process. The band itself, moreover, carried out extensive consultation with other first nations, chambers of commerce, local clubs, industry representatives, trade unions and trappers. Local communities, forest companies and the band have expressed support for this agreement, because it provides land use certainty and economic stability for the region.
[1440]
I had the pleasure of attending the signing ceremony in McLeod Lake a week or so ago, and one of the things that was absolutely evident to anybody with eyes to see was the tremendous amount of support within the community for the agreement. I think that speaks very well of the consultation process.
I want to talk ever so briefly about the legislation part of the implementation. What exactly does the legislation do? As previously noted, the legislation before us today is part of the implementation of the agreement. The McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act is required to enable the province to fulfil its commitments in this agreement. It's an agreement that has been some 16 years in the making.
Specifically, the act does the following things. First, it authorizes cabinet to empower any ministry or provincial organization to deliver on its obligations under this agreement. Second, it authorizes ministers to implement the terms of the agreement. Next, it removes interests from provincial Crown land, which will become McLeod Lake Indian band reserve land. Next, it ensures that forestry operators continue to be responsible for cleanup and reparations to the land. Next, it authorizes the province to enter into agreements with forestry operators and the McLeod Lake Indian band so that responsibility for fulfilment of standing silviculture obligations may be assumed by the McLeod Lake Indian band. Next, it next removes the obligation to deactivate forest roads, if the band wishes to retain the roads. Finally, it allows for the severalty lands to be conveyed by Crown grant, with the proviso that federal approval must be given for the lands to be alienated by the landholder.
I just conclude by offering a few observations, Mr. Speaker, obviously reserving my right to speak at greater length, perhaps at the end of the debate, in the event that there are issues raised that I feel I must respond to.
McLeod Lake treaty adhesion is an important part of our government's broad efforts to resolve outstanding claims and issues with first nations. This one is certainly unique, because as I say, it is an old treaty, and we're simply repairing a mistake that was made for reasons that are shrouded in some mystery, I think, as to why McLeod Lake Indian band was excluded in the first place. Bluntly put, McLeod Lake Indian band should have been part of the original Treaty No. 8; It wasn't. After some considerable time and struggle on the part of the band, we are finally at the point where we're repairing that historical wrong, and I for one think that's very good news.
The agreement and the legislation before us today, it seems to me, demonstrate very well that British Columbia does, indeed, have the ability to resolve outstanding claims and thereby achieve land use certainty in this province. Ultimately, of course, that's what the process of resolving land claims is. Of course it's about justice and about legal obligations, but one of the main drivers is also the fact that we believe -- and we think all the evidence supports the conclusion -- that resolving the issue of uncertainty hanging over the land base is absolutely crucial, absolutely essential, for the economic health of this province.
The McLeod Lake agreement, I think, is proof -- lest anybody still wants some -- that negotiation is still the preferable option. It's better than litigation, it's better than direct action and confrontation, and it ultimately will be productive of a solution that will be for the good of us all. Certainly I think the McLeod Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act is a marvellous illustration of that very theme. That's why I'm extremely honoured today to move second reading of this bill.
[1445]
M. de Jong: Let me begin on Bill 10 by first extending my congratulations to the parties: the government of B.C., the government of Canada and, of course, the McLeod Lake band. Lest there be any suspense, the opposition is going to support this legislation that gives effect to the deal that has been negotiated and signed.
The band, the chief and the 387 members of the band have shown a lot of patience. It's taken a long time, and in fact it may have taken three or four years longer than it should have. We can explore that a little bit later. It's an interesting history, one that goes back over 100 years now to 1899 -- the
[ Page 15486 ]
signing, the execution of Treaty 8 and, as the minister points out, the exclusion, by virtue of whatever means that occurred, of the McLeod Lake band. Governments at both levels, federal and provincial, never got around to making the adhesion that this legislation gives effect to.
Of course, that had significant implications for the band. Their access to traditional lands was restricted, but they never got the compensation -- either land or money, the currency of the day -- that other bands who were signatories to Treaty 8 were provided with. They were placed, I think it is fair to say, at a dramatic disadvantage vis-à-vis not just all other Canadians but other aboriginal people in the area.
They tried. Not unlike many aboriginal groups seeking justice, they tried for years and years, through the sixties, seventies
That, of course, since that time, has had an impact, I would say -- and people from the area more particularly would say a significant negative impact -- on the ability to get on with enterprise and development in that area. Be that as it may, that was the situation through 1986 to about 1992 when, in fairness, this government, along with the government of Canada, signalled a willingness to negotiate a resolution to that court dispute, and litigation was adjourned.
Well, you had the negotiations that gave rise to today's agreement and today's bill. I thought to myself, as I was thinking about those negotiations and how to describe what this deal was about, that I might resort to the words of the individual who I think has acted for the McLeod band since the litigation commenced, Mr. Andrew Schuck. We actually had an opportunity to hear from him when he addressed the select standing committee around Nisga'a back in December of 1996. It was an interesting presentation he made, and he summarized, I think fairly accurately, what those negotiations were about when he said:
[1450]
"To understand the claim, let me tell you what it's not about. The claim is not about self-government; it is not about a separate justice system; it is not about a separate educational system; it is not about seeking title to the northern half of the province, lock, stock and barrel; it is not about the comanagement of resources; it is not a claim for a percentage of fish, moose or beaver. It's simply a claim to adhere to the treaty and to receive the benefits that we" -- meaning non-aboriginal Canadians -- "promised them when we extinguished their aboriginal title: 128 acres per band member -- in my client's case, 500,000 acres; and a cash component of $10 million, which is paid for exclusively by Canada pursuant to existing policy. And finality, of course, is achieved."That's as accurate a summary of what these negotiations were about as I can think of, Mr. Speaker.
There are two things I want to say that derive out of what lawyer Schuck said and also our visit to Mackenzie as a legislative committee. The minister referred to it briefly, and that is that one could not help but be impressed, even in 1996, with the level of local support that existed around what was then an interim agreement, or what people hoped and thought was an interim agreement.
It speaks well, I think, of the efforts the parties made. But I have to say in particular, based on the submissions we received and one's discussion with the mayor and council
You couldn't help but be impressed by the efforts that had been taken and the results that had been achieved and the commentary from local officials and local people that no, they weren't 100 percent satisfied, but there was a recognition of the effort that had been made to involve them and keep them informed. And at the end of the day, they were hopeful that the agreement could be ratified and that all parties could get on with their lives and make use of the lands that were, at that time, tied up via the courts.
But there was another feeling that one got in December 1996 -- actually February 1997, when we were in Mackenzie -- and that is the frustration relating to a delay. I guess you could say, Mr. Speaker, that there's no real point in spending a lot of time considering that, but three years passed. At the time we were in Mackenzie, the band was returning to court.
I guess the question could be asked of the government: what changed? What changed between the early part of 1997 and 2000, when this deal was finally initialled? It took a threat to go back to court -- in fact, I think litigation was resumed -- to get sign-off. And I have to say -- and I think the Hansard from the submissions we heard will bear this out -- that the blame was laid squarely on the shoulders of the provincial government -- not my accusation, but the submission that we were given in December 1996 by lawyer Schuck. And when we went to Mackenzie, there was a similar accusation.
I guess the government could say: "Well, it's largely a moot point. Let us celebrate the achievement of a deal now and get on with it." But I note that in the agreement that was signed, British Columbia is contributing $1 million towards McLeod Lake's legal fees. I think one can ask: how much additional cost accrued in the intervening three years?
Maybe it's not a relevant point if the delay resulted in significant changes to what was then an interim agreement. But that's not my information. My information is that the interim arrangement that existed back in 1996 is essentially what we are dealing with today. Insofar as the taxpayers of British Columbia are being asked to contribute to the legal costs associated with securing this deal, I think it is relevant to at least pose the question to the government: how much of that was accrued during the intervening three-year delay? And what was achieved as a result of that delay?
[1455]
I want to talk, perhaps more importantly, about some of the features of the deal -- not all of them, but a few of them. I think it is fair to say that land claims negotiations in British Columbia have, to a certain extent, hit an impasse. I know the government doesn't like to refer to it in those terms; they would rather like to focus on progress, where they can point to it.
[ Page 15487 ]
But the fact of the matter is that the days when ministers were predicting final agreements and significant progress are over. The minister, in our recent estimates exchange, I think, offered very, very cautious predictions -- very conservative predictions -- about what might take place in terms of achieving settlements. In fact, he can correct me, but I don't think he predicted the achievement of a final agreement over the next year -- some talk of some cash-land settlements, perhaps a couple of interim agreements-in-principle. We're not even talking about any final agreements within the Treaty Commission process, Mr. Speaker.
I contrast that with what has happened here in McLeod Lake, and I also point out that, of course, McLeod Lake had an option. They could have opted for negotiating a comprehensive land claim agreement, but they chose not to. In so doing, I guess you could say that they, for the moment at least, have forgone the opportunity to negotiate some of the things that lawyer Schuck referred to in his submission.
But maybe we have to look at this agreement with an eye to learning something about how these negotiations were conducted. Maybe there's a lesson. What is that choice they have made resulted in for them and for their neighbours in the Mackenzie area? So what about some of the features of the deal?
It won't surprise the minister. I think I should do this as well. I should acknowledge that besides ministry officials who offered a briefing on the deal, the member for Peace River South has doggedly pursued questioning of the government over the last eight or nine years and was involved in a fairly direct way as the first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The exchange that has taken place in estimates debates and in this House over the past number of years between the member for Peace River South and various Ministers of Aboriginal Affairs is helpful in tracking just where this discussion and debate has gone.
One can't help but note that we are today celebrating the achievement of a deal and adhesion to Treaty 8 that, I would say, is every bit as significant to the 387 members of that band as the achievement of the Nisga'a deal was for the members of that community. This is a very significant development for them -- one that they have worked towards for a long, long time.
[1500]
When you look at the provisions of that agreement that deal with certainty and finality and at the language that is used, you have to make the observation, as it has been made in the past, that those words that we are told represent an absolute obstacle to progress and settlement -- that is, "cede, release and surrender" -- are the words that are adopted here to ensure that this represents a lasting, final and certain agreement.
One can draw the distinction, as I'm sure members of the government will, that this was an adhesion to an older treaty. But repeatedly we are told that that is a non-starter for negotiating with first nations people in British Columbia. Well, apparently not. Apparently, in this case, that's not the case. These are first nations people in British Columbia, and they had a choice. They had a choice about whether or not they wanted to opt for a comprehensive land claims agreement within the Treaty Commission process or whether they wanted to adhere. That is point one with respect to that issue.
I have to say that it's not altogether an academic point, in light of what the minister has said most recently about the discussions that are taking place within the Treaty Commission process around certainty language. It seems that we're back discussing that -- that the government's preferred position, as I understand it, is that now the language utilized in the Nisga'a settlement model is satisfactory and achieves the notions of certainty and finality that it is looking for
We should be mindful, I think
Land transfer was made, I think, somewhat easier
I want to focus, for a moment, on the provisions of the agreement that deal with lands and severalty. I don't by any means profess to be an expert on this, and I'm appreciative of the information the ministry staff were able to provide. My understanding is that this is a concept and notion within Treaty 8 that has historically involved a choice -- as it does today, quite honestly, for members of the band. It involves a choice in how they are to individually or collectively receive treaty benefits. Historically, it was quite a dramatic choice, insofar as those who opted for lands in severalty back in 1899, in another century, achieved that but gave up some things -- essentially their right to be a member of the band and the benefits that flowed to the band, whatever they were. The trade-off was through enfranchisement; they acquired the right to vote. It was a very, very dramatic and significant decision that individuals were required to make.
One of the issues we'll want to explore when we get into committee is how those individuals
[1505]
Another facet of that which interests me and that we'll want to explore with the minister relates to the manner in which that transfer takes place -- 160 acres in fee simple. I will tell the minister now that I'm more than curious and perhaps a little troubled that the land is transferred subject to a fairly significant caveat, which is the right those individuals have who take that land to alienate
[ Page 15488 ]
was a feature of these settlements that we had moved beyond, it was the notion that when individuals take title and land in fee simple, they shouldn't have government looking over their shoulder exercising a veto over their right to sell or otherwise deal with that land.
That is a feature of Treaty 8 that is preserved and in fact emphasized in this agreement. Maybe the minister, during the committee-level debate, is going to say that it is there at the insistence of the band and its members. I suppose that represents something of an answer to the question, but I have a difficult time believing that. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone in any band would want to remain tied and have that degree of paternalism continue to operate in a way that I think can only complicate their lives in the long run.
We'll want to explore that. There are concerns. I don't want to overdramatize it. I am advised from consultations with people in Mackenzie and the areas -- some of the guide-outfitters, some of the licence holders -- about the process by which these lands in severalty will be selected. I understand that it is not an issue that has been resolved at this point, that there are negotiations which will take place on an individual basis that will extend into the future.
I guess one of the other features of this that crops up, as well, is the ability that adult members of the band
I understand that in Bear Lake and Mackenzie Lake there is an expectation that before there is finalization, there will be servicing agreements between the band and those two local jurisdictions for lands that are located within their boundaries. Those discussions are ongoing as well, so there is some negotiating to be done yet.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
There is the question of valuation of the stumpage. I had hoped the minister would have mentioned this, and he may later or during the committee level. We are told that the price tag on that matter could be as high as an additional $18 million. I understand that $25 million has already been paid. If I have those figures wrong, the minister will correct me. But there is $25 million, plus an additional $18 million that is owed, relating to past stumpage. These are not insignificant amounts of money, and we will seek to verify what those amounts are.
[1510]
The question of mineral rights. As I understand it, mineral rights to the majority of the lands remain vested in the provincial Crown, though there is an agreement to split revenues 50-50, the difficulty there being
Lastly, what I want to alert the government to is the concern that has been articulated by some of the small tenure and licensee holders -- that their interests may be impacted by the transfer of some of the lands, both the reserve and non-reserve lands, that are captured by the terms of this agreement. The fact that those interests may be impacted is another issue we can explore in further detail at the committee stage.
But let me end on a more positive note, to emphasize to members of the House and to confirm for the benefit of the government that, broadly speaking, there is -- in my view, at least -- support for the fact that this agreement has finally been reached and disappointment that it took so long -- on the part of many people, the band included, but also members of the community in Mackenzie and around McLeod Lake. I hope now that on the strength of this agreement, the members of that community can get on with development and enterprise and get on with capitalizing on the natural resources that exist there, to the benefit of all of the members of the community.
We have always said on this side of the House that any land claims agreement will live or die at the end of the day on the strength of the support it enjoys on the ground, in the communities that it is going to impact most directly. I am happy to say that, by and large, there is support. As a result, members of the opposition are happy -- with the caveats I have mentioned -- to lend their voice of support to the legislation that gives effect to this deal.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to be rising in the Legislature today in support of Bill 10. I have had the privilege of representing the Sekani people of the McLeod Lake band for some eight and a half years. During that time I have advocated for resolution of their case for adhesion to Treaty 8 in a variety of places over that period. Like the member opposite, I want to acknowledge the efforts of others who have worked towards this goal in this chamber, including the member for Peace River South -- he and I share a general agreement on the importance of this treaty -- and the member for Prince George-Mount Robson. He previously represented the riding of Prince George North and was also involved in working with the people of McLeod Lake.
I'm not going to dwell a great deal on the technicalities of what's in the treaty or not. I will leave that to the minister responsible. I must say, though, that it was a wonderful day in McLeod Lake on April 28, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and I and the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and Chief Alec Chingee had the honour to sign this adhesion document in the presence of band members that had come from across the province -- in some cases from across Canada -- to witness this historic day for them. The importance of this event in the life of the Sekani people of McLeod Lake cannot be underestimated.
[1515]
The member opposite spoke of the people of McLeod Lake being at a dramatic disadvantage compared to other people living on their traditional territory prior to the adhesion to this treaty. I would agree with him. The Sekani people of McLeod Lake felt very much shut out of the economic life and economic opportunity in the region. They felt very
[ Page 15489 ]
strongly that they needed to assert their rights to economic opportunity in the land which they and their ancestors had inherited for probably thousands of years -- surely long before Simon Fraser established Fort McLeod back in 1805, the first permanent European settlement west of the Rockies in B.C., from which the band then took its name. They've been there a long time. It was painful to see themselves shut out of the economy and opportunity around them that they saw in Mackenzie, Bear Lake and Prince George. They have had wonderful leadership over the years, and in seeking this treaty, they have been relentless and forceful.
I would say, though, that their situation is not greatly different from other bands, other first nations in the province, who are also at a dramatic disadvantage. It does not matter, frankly, whether they have the opportunity to adhere to an existing historical treaty, as McLeod Lake has had, or they do not. In either case, the important thing here is to focus on the issues of economic opportunity and to rectify a historical injustice in the making of treaties. Just because this is a bill reflecting an adhesion to a historic treaty makes it no less a significant event in the life of the members of this community in the northern part of my riding.
I would also like to amplify on the comments of the member opposite about the support that this agreement has in the surrounding communities. In my view, he is quite accurate in saying that. Within my riding, in the communities around McLeod Lake there is strong support for getting on with putting this treaty into place. A part of that, I think, does reflect well on the efforts of the people of McLeod Lake. It also reflects well on the work of people employed by the province of British Columbia and the government of Canada in conducting the local consultation around treaty issues. I want to acknowledge them, because I've surely worked with many of them over the years as the work on these negotiations went forward.
I know that in the early nineties there was consultation, and in 1993 there was actually a formal committee established, the forest sector committee -- because one of the great concerns here was the impact of this treaty on forest activity and forest communities -- to consult with industry. I think in the terms of this treaty you'll see that the band and their activities mesh well with the need of the industry for security and certainty on access to the land. The band, by this treaty, has said: "We will put timber that we harvest from our lands on the log market for sale in the region; we will integrate ourselves with the economy of the region." It's very much a timber economy and a forest economy in that part of British Columbia. They very much see this treaty as providing them that opportunity to be not coming to the Ministry of Forests asking for a temporary timber licence or some salvage deal or a little contract here. They see themselves now as having the ability, in their own right, to control their destiny and integrate with the dominant economy of the area.
The other thing that was established, again in the early nineties, was a cross-sectoral committee that sought to make sure everybody understood exactly what was going on in these negotiations. It included the district of Mackenzie, I know, the Bear Lake community commission, the Prince George regional development corporation, the Cariboo Real Estate Association, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Westcoast Energy and associations representing guide-outfitters and trappers -- really the broad range of people who, in some way, also had interest in the land that McLeod Lake band was claiming treaty rights to.
[1520]
I think that the agreement we had before this debate reflects those local interests. I agree firmly with the member opposite -- another surprise -- that one of the tests of treaties is local acceptance. I must say that in this case -- and, I would say, as in the case of the Nisga'a treaty -- some of the strongest supporters for getting on with life and doing a treaty are the people closest to the first nation that was seeking permanence and recognition of their rights as first nations. This is an agreement that reflects those local interests.
I will leave the discussion of many of the points that the member opposite raised about how ongoing discussions with trappers and guide-outfitters about impact on their tenures will be dealt with, how B.C. is going to carry out its obligations under the agreement and what this means in terms of stumpage payable to McLeod Lake band. I'll leave that aside. I did want to reflect, though, at least briefly, on where this whole process started and where we've ended up.
This is a small community: 387 individuals. Fewer than half of them actually reside in the principal reserve community close to McLeod Lake and the historic site of Fort McLeod. Others live in Mackenzie or in Prince George. But they are definitely residents of the region, the great majority of them. They and their ancestors lived on this land long before there was a fur economy in B.C., of which they then became part.
The impact of this treaty on the band cannot be overestimated. I would correct one thing, though, that I heard from the member opposite. I do not think that the people of McLeod Lake will see full social justice and full recognition of what they want to do in controlling their own destiny stop with this adhesion, which recognizes their rights to land and cash under a historic treaty.
When I talk to band members, they want the work to be ongoing as they gain more control and more influence over matters as simple as the education of their children, health care for their elders and the environmental protection for their lands. The work is ongoing; the member said it well. At least, I recognized in what he was saying that even an event as significant as this -- where, after 16 years, we have reached a formal agreement for treaty adhesion for the Sekani people of the McLeod Lake Indian band -- is just a stage along the way, both for the band, as it evolves into the future, and seeks its economic opportunity as part of British Columbia, and for the surrounding community.
There's one final point I want to touch on, and both the minister and the member opposite spoke to it as well. I might provide a little more insight into this. This day did not start with negotiators sitting across a table rationally discussing how lands might be selected for adhesion to an 1899 treaty. This day actually started, regrettably, with confrontation. It started with illegal logging, because the government of the day had no interest in even talking about negotiating adhesion to this treaty. It moved from confrontation -- and it was not pleasant -- to the courts. As both members have spoken of so far, both sides spent a lot of money on lawyers, and that didn't resolve it either. Confrontation didn't work; the courts didn't work. What finally did work was people of good will from all sides sitting down and saying, "It's time to figure out how this can work for us," rather than pursuing a court settlement or some sort of confrontation.
[1525]
[ Page 15490 ]
When I look at this treaty, I see what has happened here in McLeod Lake as a microcosm of what needs to happen across the province: a recognition by all sides that if we sit down seriously and work hard at it, we can get to a deal that recognizes that we're not in two separate realities. We're part of one common people living here in British Columbia. As the Supreme Court said in the Delgamuukw case, we're all here to stay. We'd better recognize that and figure out how we work together for the progress, prosperity, security and justice of us all.
Hon. J. Doyle: I'm pleased to speak in second reading of Bill 10, the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8
There are a number of key issues in the agreement regarding forestry. The agreement ensures that strict rules for the protection and sustainability of forest resources in the area will continue to apply to McLeod Lake bands. This is very important for the McLeod Lake first nations people and for all people in the province. Forestry practices on the reserve lands will be conducted in a sustainable manner and will be defined by the McLeod Lake Indian band forest practices code.
The McLeod Lake Indian band forest practices code must meet or beat provincial standards for harvesting methods, forest health, soil conservation, environmental protection, water quality, forest road engineering, construction, forest protection and silviculture. Those are all very important to the well-being and good stewardship of forests in our province.
As part of the final agreement, McLeod Lake will establish and maintain a $1 million trust fund to correct any deficiencies in forest practices when they're harvesting trees in their lands. McLeod Lake will establish an annual allowable cut rate in order to carry out sustainable forest practices. This rate will be made in consultation with British Columbia and carried out under the McLeod Lake forest practices code.
Under the agreement, hon. Speaker, timber harvested from the McLeod Lake band's lands will be offered at fair market values within the Prince George and Mackenzie timber supply areas. McLeod Lake will not engage in any primary processing of this timber that duplicates facilities already in use in the Prince George timber supply area. This will help to integrate the band's economy into the local economy. This is very important, that communities, whether they're first nations or others, work together; that's good for all of us in British Columbia.
Those obligations and the restrictions under the timber supply will be in place for 20 years from the signing of this final agreement. The province will ensure that outstanding reforestation and silviculture treatment are completed for all harvested areas on lands that will belong to the McLeod Lake band. British Columbia will return stumpage to McLeod Lake for timber harvested after 1995, as was mentioned by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, on the Crown lands that will become reserve lands and were under injunction at the time it was harvested.
I am pleased to join, as I said, with other members speaking on this bill. It's good to see the general agreement. I've no doubt that this will be dealt with in a fast, timely basis by this House.
[1530]
R. Neufeld: I rise to briefly speak to Bill 10, the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act. Like my colleague for Matsqui, I stand in support of the agreement and wish to make a few comments about it.
Mr. Speaker, the lands or the band in question do not reside or are not situated in my constituency. But Treaty 8 covers the whole part of my constituency, which is a huge part of the northern part of British Columbia. I know that in my constituency, although there have been some disagreements with the bands, there has been, I think, a pretty good working agreement between the bands in Treaty 8 that are in my constituency and the resource industries.
I can say that some of the things that have taken place in the last while with this present government, in trying to deal with some of those issues, have gone a long ways to making that happen. There is a way that we can actually work together, farm the resources, for the betterment of everyone. I think it's true in the constituency that I reside in, and when I look at some of the issues in the McLeod Lake Indian band treaty adhesion and some of the stipulations, it should work fairly well within their territory also.
Treaty 8 is a treaty that was signed in 1899. That's a long time ago, hon. Speaker. I want to back up a bit to when we started dealing with Nisga'a in the House and all the issues that went on about the Nisga'a treaty, the first modern-day treaty. I often wondered why we would be trying to develop treaties that encompass 700 to 800 pages of legalese and descriptions and all those kinds of issues. It gets hard to understand bounds, and I think that if you put the metes and bounds with this, it probably would be double this amount -- and the McLeod Lake adhesion treaty, which I think encompasses 75 or 80 pages, something to that amount, for a modern-day treaty. I have always been of the opinion that the larger and the more difficult and the more descriptive you try to make a treaty -- in fact, when I spoke on Nisga'a, I spoke about these terms -- the more difficult it becomes to have that treaty actually work on the ground.
No offence to the legal profession, but at the end of the day they seem to be the winners in many of those issues, because that's who seems to be able to come in and try and interpret different sections of the treaties in different ways. As I said, I mean no offence to the legal profession. But the longer the document, the bigger the document, the more difficult the document, the more you know that those issues are going to be in a court of law -- trying to deal with them there.
I think it's evident, and it should be evident to all of us in this House, that the courts are not always the end-all and be-all of trying to settle some of these issues. They are expensive, and I think the government knows that full well, with what's taken place in the last number of years just with their operations. They become very expensive, and the people that pay for it are those who live on the treaty land and the public at large.
I support this treaty and the agreement that's made. I for one would very much like to encourage the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that we look closely -- and we don't always have to follow this model -- at how we can actually
[ Page 15491 ]
have modern-day treaties that are simplified to a certain degree, instead of so prescriptive. I think that's not just important to myself or the people that I represent in my constituency or the people of British Columbia, but it's very important to the very people that we're trying to deal with in treaties, and that's the aboriginal people. I think that the more we can make these treaties workable on the ground, the better off those particular bands will be.
[1535]
The other issue I understand, and I have spoken to a number of people in the area, is that there is acceptance of this treaty to a large degree. That will go a long ways, Mr. Speaker, to making sure that this treaty will be dealt with fairly and will work. If we get treaties that are so difficult, so large and so huge and hard to understand, once you put try to them on the ground they become almost impossible to be able to put into place and to work.
For some of those reasons I am happy to support Bill 10. I do notice also
I think that's a great step forward. I do have some difficulty -- and I know the member for Matsqui brought it up, and I'll bring it up again so that the minister is on notice that we'll have some questions around this -- in that the federal government reserves the right, actually, to withhold that land if that individual wishes to dispose of it.
That's really, I think, ultimately telling the native people that they can't do what they want with their land. I have a piece of land, and if I wish to sell it, I can sell it. I don't have to speak to the federal or provincial government. All I have to do is be able to sell it within the laws and regulations that are place in British Columbia. I don't think that it should be any different for those people who have chosen not to live on the communal land, to actually have their own land; they should be able to make their decisions the way they wish to make their decisions about their land.
I also notice
The certainty part. I think many people in British Columbia -- when I go around, anyhow
[1540]
Treaty 8 does have a certainty clause in it and the treaty states that the Indians cede, release, surrender and yield up to the federal government the rights, titles and privileges to the lands. I think that gives people in the province some certainty about what's actually taking place. I know that the treaty, actually, is not exactly the same as Treaty 8, because the band is able to pick out certain land with certain resources on it and set aside certain areas for berry-picking and those kinds of things, which I think most people accept and will accept.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I add my support to Bill 10 and congratulate the McLeod Lake band for their perseverance. In fact, when I think about it, I am glad they persevered to get this treaty signed, whether the Minister of Finance says it was some other government or not -- that's quite typical, to blame someone else. The band, to my knowledge, actually had to start a court action against the government to have it come to the table, sit down and start negotiating this treaty. It's unfortunate, for a government that talks about wanting to settle treaties in a modern way, that the bands actually have to solicit the cooperation of the province through the court system. I think that's terribly unfortunate in the province, and I hope that doesn't happen again.
So again, I conclude my remarks with my support for Bill 10, the McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act.
P. Nettleton: It's an opportunity which I'm happy to take advantage of, an opportunity to congratulate, first of all, the McLeod Lake band -- the leadership of that band -- and the Sekani people who are involved with respect to this treaty.
I see that we have a number of school-age children here today who are probably -- I'm just guessing -- roughly in grade 6, somewhere in elementary school. I would expect that the world that they will face will be quite different with respect to the whole question of treaties than the world that we face here today, the residents of McLeod Lake and other bands throughout the province face and children their age in villages throughout the province -- first nations children, native children
First nations have a responsibility, as well, to decide amongst themselves in terms of what it is they want -- varying, as it does, from village to village and from region to region -- where it is they want to go and what the future holds not only for them -- that is for the current leadership of the various bands -- but for their children. I know that is a big concern, and I know that in fact we have seen leadership at the provincial level, at the regional level and even from band to band.
[ Page 15492 ]
I'm fortunate in that I come from a neighbouring riding, the riding of Prince George-Omineca. Ed John, the grand chief of the summit, is in fact a product of the village of Tachie, Tl'azt'en nation, which lies next to Fort St. James, where I presently reside. I'm quite pleased to say that I come from Fort St. James and from that area. I know that the people of that region are proud of what he has done and what he's doing in terms of providing leadership. So I believe that as we as non-natives look forward to people like Grand Chief Ed John and others coming out from the various villages and providing the leadership they will need to, as I say, get some sense of direction in terms of where they want to go and what they want to achieve.
Treaties are certainly not the end in terms of achieving their objectives, but they are certainly a necessary step along the way to achieving those objectives.
[1545]
I know, in recent conversations with a friend who has been working with the government in the Yukon, where they have an umbrella agreement with respect to treaties, quite unlike what we have here in British Columbia
Again, I'm delighted to congratulate, as a neighbour of the McLeod Lake band, as a representative of a good number of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council in the Prince George-Omineca riding
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 10, which implements the adhesion for the McLeod Lake band to Treaty 8. I know that a number of people, including the minister, have talked about the history and why the McLeod Lake band wasn't included back in the late 1800s or early 1900s.
My view of how that occurred -- and it's one person's view of history -- was that the Treaty Commission, which travelled through northern Alberta, northwest Saskatchewan, areas into the Northwest Territories and into northwestern B.C., understood their area, the bounds of their authority, to be the arctic watershed. I think they, understandably, believed that the arctic watershed and the Height of the Rockies were one and the same.
So they went in and dealt in the Peace River area with the bands that have historically been known as Treaty 8 bands. They missed bands in northern Alberta that were nomadic by nature. I don't believe they overlooked McLeod Lake, but rather they didn't recognize the geographic area that the McLeod Lake band were resident in as being within the arctic watershed or the area in which they had been instructed to go and make treaties.
If one follows that logic, then it seems to me very clear not only that the arctic watershed includes the Rocky Mountain Trench and entitles the McLeod Lake band to make a decision to adhere to Treaty 8, as band members there did, but that you have exactly the same situation at Kwadacha -- or Fort Ware, as it is more commonly known on the map -- and also at Tsay Keh Dene or Ingenika, which is a relative
[1550]
Those three bands could make precisely the same argument that the McLeod Lake band has made with respect to adhesion to Treaty 8. I fully recognize that McLeod Lake, the Kwadacha, Tsay Keh Dene and Lower Post could all decide, as they could have in the case of McLeod Lake, that they want to pursue a comprehensive land claim. They chose not to. They chose to pursue Treaty 8. They started that in 1982, as I recall.
It was a long battle -- nearly 20 years. But when one looks at native history in this province, that's probably a relatively short time. I expect that if most of the bands involved in the treaty-making process could look at a time line of 18 years from the time they finally decided to pursue a claim to final signatures, to the Legislature's passing the bills, they would decide that wasn't an inordinately long time.
From talking with the minister, both in estimates and in less formal circumstances, I know that the province is still very, very reluctant to recognize the arctic watershed and to recognize the bands that I've mentioned as having a right to sign on to Treaty 8. I think they will find, should any of the bands make that decision -- and none have to date -- that they will have a battle, I expect, not so much with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs but rather with the Attorney General. At least that was the case when I was the minister. Perhaps it's comforting, and at the same time disturbing, to know that some things don't ever seem to change, that obstacles don't seem to go away easily.
Let me talk for a minute about that. I think the legal evidence is clear. Quite honestly, I'm not sure that the advisers in the Attorney General ministry would have consented, if you like -- and I use that term with a bit of sarcasm -- or would have agreed to this deal if they hadn't known, going to court, that they were going to lose. The facts of the matter are pretty clear. The arctic watershed is where it is. Treaty 8 documents clearly define the arctic watershed as the area of jurisdiction, and I think that while there might be some legal wrangling for these Rocky Mountain Trench bands, at the end of the day it wouldn't be a huge fight.
So what would be the decision if one were a member of the Fort Ware band or the In-SHUCK-ch N'Quat'qua, or a band member at Lower Post? What would be the options that you would look at when considering whether or not you should sign on to Treaty 8? This is a decision made by the McLeod Lake band -- I think a courageous decision. I think that the decision that McLeod Lake made is, in many ways, similar to the decision of the Nisga'a. The Nisga'a, very early in history in this province, decided to pursue a comprehensive land claim -- courageously; we've talked about that in this House. The McLeod Lake band decided to use a different mechanism. That always requires a level of courage, and I think the McLeod Lake band deserves to be recognized for
[ Page 15493 ]
that, in much the same way as I have enormous respect for the Sechelt and their willingness to pursue a comprehensive claim with a delegated form of self-government.
Anytime you break away from the mold, there are critics, and those latter two bands have had their share of criticism. But if the other bands look at the decisions that are made and model the comprehensive claim versus the treaty adhesion, there are some interesting parallels and some interesting differences. The Nisga'a got about 80 acres of land per person. Treaty 8, a historic treaty designed to make farmers of aboriginal, or native, people on the prairies, allowed for 128 acres per person, to a maximum of 640 acres per family -- that being a quarter section of land -- and for 160 acres for individuals who weren't members of a family group of four or larger.
[1555]
So the land is almost twice as much. The land entitlement, if you decide to adhere to Treaty 8, is almost twice as much, certainly half as much again and a little more. The cash component is provided by the federal government -- for Nisga'a, about $35,000, and for McLeod Lake, $25,000. Again, I guess there's an interesting decision that one would have to make: is 80 acres of land and $35,000 worth as much as 128 acres of land and $25,000? That's a decision, obviously, for individual band members and individual bands to make.
The member for Matsqui, the official opposition critic and others, I'm sure, have noted that Treaty 8 contains the old cede, surrender and release language. We've been told -- I've been told many times -- that, indeed, bands in this province in this day and age would never, ever accept cede, release and surrender -- I believe it is, rather than surrender and release -- language, that it was too harsh, that it offended aboriginal people. Well, that may be the case in some places. It obviously didn't offend the McLeod Lake band to the degree that they couldn't live with it. The language is the historic language. The treaty allows for bands to hunt, fish and trap as formerly and provides no reference to self-government. What fascinates me with this issue is that I've been told since the days when I was minister that bands would never accept the old certainty language and that bands would never accept a treaty that didn't enshrine aboriginal self-government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in the two examples that I've used -- McLeod Lake and Sechelt -- we have treaties that were done without the constitutional enshrinement of self-government. I think that it's important, as we move forward, to recognize these facts, as opposed to the rhetoric. Heaven knows, rhetoric doesn't belong at any one of the three tables in a negotiation. The feds come with lots; the province comes with lots. And there's no question that the band comes with the very best arguments that they can put forward. But I think that as these treaties unfold, these facts become relevant in the future.
There are just a couple of other unique things about this treaty. Treaty 8 allowed for the enfranchisement of aboriginal people. If you take your minds back to 1899 and later, when the treaty was being circulated around western Canada, aboriginal people didn't have the right to vote. So one of the elements of the old treaty was to allow band members to take land severally, as it was described in the treaty -- or individually -- and enfranchise themselves. So what they got were 160 acres of land to which they got fee simple title, as near as I can figure out. They got the right to vote. And in essence, they ceased to be Indians as per the official description; they ceased to be beneficiaries under the Indian Act.
[1600]
What's happened at McLeod Lake is somewhat akin to that. I understand that 29 members of the band have decided that they'll take their 160 acres of land severally, or separately. This falls very clearly into the area of the federal government. But I think the province has an obligation not only to be aware of how that's unfolding but also to make sure it's consistent with the objectives of the people at McLeod Lake and the people of the province, in the broader sense.
I think there are questions -- and we'll pursue them a bit further in committee stage -- about the status of people who take land severally. We know, historically, what the position was, but so far nobody's been able to tell me exactly what happens in the modern-day context. With respect, some of the provisions in the old treaty for cattle, scythes and suits with brass buttons, were clearly old-fashioned and out-of-date. Those have been replaced with cash, which is always up-to-date and modern and which people all understand.
The question is: what happens to status? What's the saw-off? What's the trade-off for taking land and moving away from the communal group? Is there an opportunity
Is there some value still in that old element of the treaty? Is there some value in saying to people, particularly people who live off reserve: "Here's how you could more fully participate in a comprehensive land claims settlement; here's a model"? Enough thought probably hasn't been given to that issue and to the status of the people who opt for it.
Enfranchisement in the late 1800s had upsides and downsides. Aboriginal people, thank heaven, have been enfranchised since, so that's no longer a carrot that can be dangled out there. But should in fact the 29 band members at McLeod Lake who've taken their land individually still be entitled to band membership? Should they be entitled to all of the benefits that McLeod Lake band members enjoy? Should there be the same education provisions for their children? To what extent, in this day and age -- with adequate and perhaps more than adequate legal representation for bands and individuals -- can an aboriginal family commit their children? Are they less able to commit their children to a family decision than I was when my children were minors?
I made decisions -- my family, my wife and I made decisions, often in discussion with our minor children -- about where we would live, whether we would sell the family home, whether we would move to a new community. I wonder how, in the modern day, this application applies to the people at McLeod Lake.
[1605]
In closing, I want to commend the province, the federal negotiators and most particularly the McLeod Lake band, because the outstanding feature of this unique arrangement, I believe, is the exceptional relations with the communities around McLeod Lake. Negotiations have continued for quite some years. The town of Mackenzie is a new town on Williston Lake in the centre of the traditional McLeod Lake territory. There were a lot of negotiations, consultations. The band picked out land immediately adjacent to the municipal boundaries at McLeod Lake, and there were concerns raised. In the very best spirit of negotiation, new lands were selected. The effect of that was very, very cordial relations and a high
[ Page 15494 ]
level of support in the community. Recognize that this is a mining-logging community, a forest community, that sees 128 acres of land per person being alienated -- nearly twice the per capita land element that there was in the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley.
So the achievement of the McLeod Lake band and the province and the federal government in so smoothly, despite some legal hiccups along the way, making that transition makes this, for one more reason, a lesson that goes beyond simply a unique situation where a band has decided to adhere to an old treaty. Rather, I think, this puts it on a par with, or very close to, something of the import of the Nisga'a agreement and the Sechelt agreement as we start to see differing models of land claims settlements evolve.
It gives me some encouragement that despite my great fears that Nisga'a will be repeated 50 or 60 or 70 times over in this province, especially as it relates to self-government, it's still not too late for the province and the federal government and aboriginal people to rethink the issue of constitutionally enshrined self-government. We have, in the period of the last two or three years, now concluded or nearly concluded three major treaties, only one of which includes constitutionally enshrined self-government. So for those people who say you can never do a treaty with a band in British Columbia that doesn't include self-government -- constitutionally enshrined self-government -- I say: look at McLeod Lake, look at Sechelt, and then tell me that it can't be done.
Mr. Speaker, it's been a pleasure to speak to this. I want to close by again extending my congratulations to Chief Chingee, to his band members and especially to a man by the name of Verne Solonas, who has been exceptional in the work that he's done in community relations in the north-central part of British Columbia.
D. Zirnhelt: I would like to pick up where the previous member left off. I understand the strong support for this adhesion treaty, and I welcome it. I think it is proof that when you do involve the local people, local communities and third party' interests and when you do deal honourably, you can get a high, high level of agreement. It does not become a partisan issue on the floor of this Legislature.
Of course, I'm sure many members of that first nation will argue that it isn't perfect. I'm sure that many of us, as well, can argue that it isn't perfect. The fact remains that it is a lot more perfect than something that might be decided in the courts. I think that's the first point. It is a negotiated treaty, and this is the way we want to see things handled, because as we know, courts produce winners and losers. But it is important that we pause and consider the work that goes into it on behalf of local leadership, on behalf of the member from that area, on behalf of the people surrounding it. It's supported by the members from Prince George, as well. Everyone in the surrounding area and the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine were supportive of this.
[1610]
It was a treaty that took them from where they were -- having been denied being part of the treaty originally, 100 years ago -- to being given an opportunity to become part of the treaty and to correct a wrong of the past. That was when the Treaty Commission, or whatever it was called, neglected to stop in that community because, I'm sure, the people were out -- probably doing what they always did, making a livelihood on the land somewhere -- and weren't at home. That wasn't uncommon. I know there's one Indian reserve in the Charlottes that's only a couple of acres, because everybody was out fishing when the commission came by. And guess what. If you weren't at home, sitting there waiting for the commission, you don't have a place to be. This is a little bit like that, but finally, after many years, we now have a treaty in that area.
I think the negotiations were characterized -- once we got it out of the courts -- by a sufficient degree of openness and good intent on the part of the various parties that might be affected by it that it got substantial agreement from the communities around it. I think that's what we have to say about all our treaties. I think the Nisga'a treaty had a high level of agreement by the communities, the chambers of commerce, the municipalities, the political leaders in the area, save some -- a high degree of support from the surrounding communities.
With respect to what the previous speaker said about local government, I think we may well see modifications to treaties as we go through them and as people discover that it's hard to construct elaborate self-governments for very small communities. I think it's different when you're talking about thousands of people than when you're talking about hundreds of people. It's different when you're talking about even smaller numbers -- perhaps just large families.
I'm honoured to be able to stand here and support this treaty, because I think it shows that there is momentum in this province toward modernizing treaties as well as creating modern land claims treaties. I think the history has probably been dealt with sufficiently. I know that on the forestry part of this, I would like to say a couple of words, in that this treaty is a lot about land and a lot about the trees on the land. Essentially, it is a cash-and-land agreement.
Between the time that there was an agreement-in-principle and the final treaty, there were some resource management issues on the land. There was a beetle infestation, and it had to be dealt with. The government didn't put off acting because land was under negotiation. There was an agreement made to deal with the beetles and with the stumpage on the land as the treaty was being concluded.
It showed that we can work, in this critical period, from an agreement-in-principle on a land base until we actually finalize a treaty and then implement it. We can actually deal with problems that come up in the meantime. I want to congratulate the parties that were involved in that. They did it with very easy transition provisions that were agreed to. It required some negotiation, no doubt, but nevertheless, it was done rather smoothly. The Minister of Forests spoke ably about many of the forestry provisions, and I won't repeat those. Those are important, as I said, but I'm not going to go into those.
It's also important that we recognize that we have to modernize the language. When we're dealing with old treaties, as we may well have to in the negotiations around some of the Douglas treaties, they have to be modernized, taken into account. We have a few of those here. We have to find ways to take the language of agreements, of treaties, that may or may not have been honoured and give them life by putting them into language, into modern-day treaties, so that they can, like the McLeod Lake treaty, be given effect that allows for a modern expression of the intent that was there
[ Page 15495 ]
when the treaty was made. I know that the economy has changed and indeed society has changed a lot in the ensuing 100 years.
The benefits to the local economy from some of what you might call the transition provisions
[1615]
I'm more and more concerned, as we enter the agreement-in-principle stage with treaties, that we look at ways of working together on an interim basis. This treaty didn't have, to a large extent, any interim measures. As we proceed with other treaties in British Columbia, we have to have interim measures, which of course cut both ways. There are agreements which benefit and protect the resources that might be the subject of treaties, and they protect the economic activity and the resource management in the area and thereby the local economies, which is critical to supporting the eventual treaty.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
I am pleased that this treaty shows that you can have certainty that comes as a result of the discussions and that you can have that certainty up front and during the process of negotiating a treaty. I hope that we will get better and better at that, because to fail would be to fail the first nations people and to fail the people of British Columbia, as well.
A bit about the committees that were set up around this. How did the process work? Why was this treaty a good treaty? Why was the agreement effective? I think some of the committee members
These sets of local interests have been accounted for in the treaty, and the agreement reflects those. The utility rights-of-way, the highways and some forest service roads are excluded from the reserve lands. The utility companies have access through the reserve lands to their rights-of-way. The servicing agreements are to be negotiated by the band and local governments before the reserve lands near the communities of Bear Lake and Mackenzie are transferred to the land. I know there is general agreement and optimism that that can happen. It's a requirement and therefore it has to happen, and I'm confident that it can.
The guides and outfitters are involved in ongoing discussions, because there may be impact on their tenures that may be removed from Crown land. As a result, they have to be accommodated in some way. These are one of the many third-party interests that often are displaced when you have land as part of an agreement. The province is prepared to meet with other tenure holders who may identify an impact and feel that they want to discuss mitigation for that impact. As B.C. carries out its obligations under the agreement, which this legislation enables, the province's commitment to community discussion will continue. It's important for ongoing support and critical to the successful implementation of this treaty that the communities be involved continuously.
The McLeod Lake people, because they have a substantial cash portion to this treaty and because they have a large land mass -- 120 acres per capita
[1620]
That is critical to the success of treaties. We'll be watching what unfolds in the McLeod Lake area, because I know the treaties in the Cariboo will be enhanced by us being able to grow the capacity of the surrounding communities to be able to respond to the needs and the challenges of life both before and after treaties. Particularly the first nations, as they want more self-control, can grow that capacity with careful and judicious use of the funds they have while adding to those funds other programs that might be available so that with their added skills they become more in charge of their own destiny. That, to me, is what's critical.
Since I've been interested in treaties, I understand that they have two elements. One is the certainty that both parties get -- the government and the people who are not part of the first nation community, and the first nation community itself, which needs the certainty that they have a base, that they can preserve the culture as they see it and that they can grow and become modern participants in an expanding economy and be full economic citizens of the province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm honoured to stand in support of this treaty.
B. Goodacre: I, too, rise to support Bill 10 and offer my congratulations to the McLeod Lake Indian band and also to all of the folks that participated in making that treaty adhesion a reality. This treaty signing, coming on the heels of the Nisga'a signing, is a wonderful thing for our province, as we note that both of those agreements are being signed in the modern day and that both of them are quite different from each other.
I think one of the things that we have to bear in mind, as we look around our province and at the need we have for resolving issues with the first nations of this province, is that there is no one-size-fits-all. I think we have to bear in mind what we've heard from previous speakers. Clearly the McLeod Lake Indian band was prepared to sign the language that was contained in that document. I will go right away to the language, which was referred to by several speakers, of "cede, release and surrender."
Think about that for a minute -- what that language actually means. One of the things that I've heard time and time again, as we've been through the discussions of Nisga'a in particular and land claims generally, is that that is certainty
[ Page 15496 ]
language. I want us to go back to where that language first came from, and that is the language of the numbered treaties. I think that as we go forward with land claims in this province, we have to bear in mind that the numbered treaties in this country are in areas where social conditions for aboriginal people have deteriorated over the last hundred years. Third World conditions exist in virtually all of the territories where numbered treaties exist in this country.
We have to realize that if we are talking certainty in that language
I want to move on to the situation that my riding is faced with. I have over ten first nations in my riding of Bulkley Valley-Stikine that are either in the treaty process or on the edge of the treaty process. Amongst those first nations there is wide range of interest in what they actually want to accomplish with a treaty -- if a treaty is even part of the package that any of them want. We actually have first nations that are more interested in just putting together a working relationship with the government rather than an actual treaty.
My personal connection with the aboriginal people in my area started actually about the time that Treaty 8 was signed. An ancestor of mine by the name of Blackjack MacDonnell went up to Atlin and Whitehorse at the time of the gold rush in 1899 and chose to stay in the north. Our family is a result of his decision to do that. Over the past 100 years my family has been part and parcel of the development of issues with aboriginal people. When I talked to my grandfather when he was still alive about the relationship between aboriginal people and the general population at that time, one thing was very, very clear. People have always accepted in this province and in this country that the aboriginal people are a unique and separate people from the rest of Canada -- based on their prior occupancy and the fact that they've carried on their traditions, languages and lifestyles throughout all of our attempts as a wider society to shut that down.
[1625]
I don't want to belabour this point, because I have offered to give my time to my dear friend on the other side of the House from me -- my colleague from my own party, of course. I will wind up by asking this House to recognize that when we deal with aboriginal land claim issues, it is very, very important we bear in mind the needs these people have to meet their goals and objectives in the future and that there is no one way to make a treaty with the aboriginal people of this province. We have to bring the kind of flexibility into this issue that is needed to succeed in creating what I would like to refer to as the three Rs in dealing with aboriginal people, and that is recognition, respect and reconciliation, with special emphasis on our need to reconcile the rights of aboriginal people with the sovereignty of the Crown.
With that, hon. Speaker, I again offer my congratulations to the McLeod Lake people. Thank you very much for listening to me.
J. Cashore: As former Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for over four years, I want to take the opportunity in this discussion to set up a bit of context with regard to our relations with first nations and how this particular adhesion treaty we are talking about today fits into that general scenario. It is important to fit it into that context. I do appreciate the comments that members on both sides of the House have made during this discussion. I think there is a story, which is informative and instructive, to be told here with regard to how we continue to learn the best way possible to address unresolved issues in the province.
When our government was first elected in 1991, it committed from its outset to address unresolved issues of first nations. Our current Attorney General was our first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and when he stood on the threshold of the issues he had to address, there was before him a very challenging landscape. You might say it was a map of the province, and on that map there were a number of aspects of this issue.
In general there were two major umbrella organizations that represented first nations. Both of them had a distinguished history with regard to the struggle on the part of first nations peoples to achieve justice -- justice that had so long been denied by the lack of treaties in most of the province. There was the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the First Nations Summit. Also, representing the Métis people, we had a collection of Métis organizations throughout the province, but they were not united, and there was much division there. Again, the emerging legacy of the courts and the Constitution of Canada was to indicate that the Métis people, as well as other first nations people, had to be taken seriously by government in dealing with their concerns. Then there was another organization which, loosely described, represented aboriginal people in the cities, the United Native Nations.
[1630]
Then, on top of that, as our first Minister of Aboriginal Affairs found out, there was a kind of spotty history in the province with regard to addressing the certainty issues that had to be addressed through treaty-making. For instance, there were the Douglas treaties, which some members have referred to -- which were negotiated for the most part prior to Governor Douglas becoming governor -- and a bundle of treaties in some specific locations, mostly on Vancouver Island. Again, they carried their own particular set of sometimes quaint approaches -- inadequate approaches, actually -- to addressing a number of issues.
Then there was Treaty 8. Now, the initial signing of Treaty 8 was as a treaty negotiated between Canada and first nations and took place in the year 1899. Following that, there were the adhesions to that treaty in 1900, 1910, 1914, 1991 and 1999. Treaty 8 was No. 8 of 11 treaties between Canada and first nations between 1871 and 1921. The geographical area covered by Treaty 8 is Northern Alberta; Saskatchewan; the southwest portion of the Northwest Territories, as it was then called; and northeast British Columbia -- generally defined as somewhere in the vicinity of the spine of the Rocky Mountains and covering the Peace River country over to the Alberta border. I'll come back to that in relation to McLeod Lake.
So as our Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in 1991 was looking at that landscape, he realized -- as he already was aware -- that he would have to address this issue of this vast area of British Columbia that had been settled. Notwithstanding the fact that over 94 percent of the province was still Crown land, this domain of rivers and valleys and mountains,
[ Page 15497 ]
other than the Peace River country, had been settled, since European contact, in areas that were also, in a great many instances, the traditional territory of first nations. So this left an enormous task for our government, following on the efforts of the previous government, in which the member for Peace River South was the Minister of Native Affairs and really began the work that we were faced with continuing when we became government.There was a backdrop to all of this. The backdrop was the growing uncertainty on land issues in the province, especially in view of court decisions that had been coming down for quite some time by that time -- decisions that were in themselves changing the legal profile of the province with regard to land issues. Just to mention a few, there was the Nisga'a Calder case, the Sparrow decision and the first Delgamuukw decision at that time, where the term "fiduciary responsibility" suddenly became part of the common language of the people, whereas before, none of us knew what the word "fiduciary" meant.
It became apparent to the Vander Zalm-Johnston governments at that time, prior to 1991, that there was no going back, that through negotiations
[1635]
British Columbia became party to those negotiations for very good reasons. Whereas in the early days the numbered treaties had been negotiated by Canada and the first nations, now we had this entity of a province, operating under a constitution where it had responsibility for the land. And there were a number of other elements for which we were constitutionally responsible. Therefore, in my view, it would have been ludicrous not to be at the table, both to protect the interests of British Columbians and also to be able to work with the other two parties in finding a way to address the issues that involved three different jurisdictions in the emerging treaties.
Now, an interesting part of history is that the minister, along with the First Nations Summit and Tom Siddon, who was the Minister of Indian Affairs in the Mulroney government at that time
That's a long way of giving some background to a process that does not apply to McLeod Lake. But it behooves me to talk about that a bit, because the average British Columbian, understandably, having a lot of things to think about and worry about, doesn't really spend a lot of time, as we do in the Legislature, dealing with the intricacies of all these different historic parts of an unresolved part of our history. Therefore it is an opportunity to point out that while there was a general, overall need to be resolving unresolved issues, they didn't all fit into the same category. For instance, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, which I mentioned, did not buy in and have not bought into the treaty process that was worked through with the First Nations Summit.
In the case of McLeod Lake, it is true that the generic group of Treaty 8 in British Columbia did apply to enter the B.C. treaty process. They did that, I think, on December 15, 1993. They stayed in the process for a few months, but then they withdrew from that process, and they weren't there at all. At that time, I don't think that McLeod Lake was really closely connected with that Treaty 8 Provincial Council organization. But generally the challenge was to engage on a wide variety of circumstances. There were some existing treaties; in major areas of B.C. there was no treaty. Then there were the ongoing negotiations with regard to modern treaties -- in the pre-treaty process, in our responsibility to carry out our fiduciary responsibility under Delgamuukw and the emerging considerations that had to be made under the subsequent Delgamuukw decisions.
The McLeod Lake treaty, therefore, being different from the B.C. Treaty Commission process, has gone through an interesting history. For instance, it settles a lawsuit of the McLeod Lake band and allows the band to adhere to Treaty 8 -- to receive the benefits of this 100-year history of Treaty 8. It includes only land and cash provisions and not provisions such as governance, which occupies a lot of time at the regular B.C. treaty table.
Now, others today have talked about the benefits in the region, and it is interesting. I think that it's becoming more and more recognized and accepted that as the legacy of resolution unfolds, it does indeed lead to a higher degree of economic certainty and indeed economic stimulus. We know that Chief Alec Chingee, who has certainly been a wonderful spirit with regard to this process all the way, has a very strong record in business development on behalf of his people and in that area. I know that the member for Peace River South and the MLAs from Prince George have spoken to that.
Also, with regard to forestry, the former Minister of Forests, the member for Cariboo South, has outlined some of the forestry provisions. But the point is that as this resolution is achieved, it should be much more possible for that first nation to take its role in partnership with non-aboriginal entities and in dovetailing to an even greater extent into the economy of the region. Of course, one of the hoped-for outcomes will be that the opportunity for self-respect and job creation and self-determination will lead to improved social conditions.
[1640]
Now, again the question is: why would the province be at the table when it's a historic treaty and was negotiated between only two entities, the first nations and Canada? The fact is basically the same as I said before: we need to be at a treaty table to represent the provincial interest and also to be able to address issues that are of provincial importance. Therefore it was absolutely vital that the province be present.
Hon. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the negotiators for McLeod Lake, for Canada and for the province of British Columbia. I think that they have done a very fine job in carrying this out and bringing this to this conclusion. I don't for one minute think that the benefit is only for the McLeod Lake people or for the McLeod Lake region. I think it goes beyond that. I think it becomes one more building block
[ Page 15498 ]
toward the time that we achieve the certainty that we all desire for future generations -- for the children of both first nations and non-first nations -- as we realize that if we were to leave some of these issues to the next generation, we would simply be leaving them an even more difficult problem than the one that faces us at this time.
So I appreciate the opportunity to take my place in this discussion, and I look forward to seeing this implemented.
The Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs to close debate.
Hon. D. Lovick: When I was in McLeod Lake a couple of weeks ago to sign these documents for adhesion and settlement, I looked out at the crowd and saw all these wonderfully happy faces. I remember saying at the time, what a nice change that was from the Legislature where I normally spend my time. But after listening to the fact that we seem to have support on both sides of the House for this measure, I am very pleased indeed that we are seeing smiling faces here -- and we should be. This is a significant accomplishment. It's worth noting that when I was up there, on the table in front of us was a Hudson's Bay blanket, and on top of the blanket was a wolf pelt. It's sort of a reminder of where we had been and where this particular band came from.
The Carrier-Sekani people, obviously close to the land, had a difficult time, because it's not the most productive land in the world. It's been a hard struggle for them for all these years. I want to acknowledge, as so many others have here, the courage of these folks for their persistence in coming to this day.
I listened very carefully to comments from the other side, and I welcome all the comments made from both this side of the House and from the other side. I want to say that I appreciate the comments and also the spirit in which they were offered -- some criticisms, some legitimate questions, most of which, of course, we will address during committee stage.
Let me ever so briefly respond to a couple of the points, though. I think, for the record, we have some obligation to say a couple of these things -- for example, the notion that it took too long. That's probably true, but it's probably true to say that of every treaty we will ever negotiate in this province. A tremendous amount of goodwill on all parties' parts
[1645]
Second, what I think is a much more serious point -- and I don't mean for a moment to put words in the mouth of the member for Matsqui -- is the suggestion left out there that somehow the McLeod Lake treaty, Treaty 8, might be a model for other treaties. With the exception of a few other bands in the Rocky Mountain Trench that may well, because of historical connection, want to connect with Treaty 8 bands
What we thought we had achieved in the Nisga'a final agreement was language that would satisfy the demands of both parties. It would provide certainty to the non-aboriginal people of this province and also satisfy the concerns of first nations people that their rights were not being extinguished. The first nations people, through their spokespersons at the summit, advised us that they and the people they represent are not yet persuaded that the language that we used in the Nisga'a treaty does achieve what we think it does and doesn't achieve what they fear it might.
We've come a long way from cede, release, surrender language. It is simply not in the cards any longer. I can't think that anybody who thinks too much about it
I want to embrace the point made by a number of others -- namely, treaties will always live or die on the basis of the degree of support they have in their local communities. A number of people have spoken about the fact that in the McLeod Lake territory -- in Prince George, in McLeod Lake itself, in Mackenzie and surrounding communities -- there has been wonderful consultation and, therefore, wonderful support, for the measures in this treaty adhesion.
That's absolutely appropriate; it's also instructive, I think, for future treaties. I would, I guess, simply make the point that if we can say that and say that it is absolutely the requirement for treaty and that without it, you can't have a treaty
My friend from Peace River North suggested, "Isn't it a shame the documents have to be so long" -- like Nisga'a. That's a fair question. I would simply point out to him two phenomena. Number one is that the length of time to settle treaties, if we look at the historical progression, is indeed coming down -- though sometimes one wonders. What was it -- 25 or more years in the Yukon, I think, to get the umbrella agreement? The ones in Quebec, similarly -- a huge number of years. So I think we are getting better at it. And as my friend from Peace River North said, "Sixteen years probably sounds pretty good to lots of first nations," if they thought they could get one from start to end -- to actually get a treaty in that time period.
[1650]
[ Page 15499 ]
The point is that we are working on a shorter, less complicated document. To the member for Peace River North, I agree. It would be wonderful if we could, and indeed we have tried. The government of B.C. has tried a number of those models. We looked, at one point, at a basic generic model for a treaty, something like a 20-page document. Alas, those discussions went nowhere. But my sense is, for what it's worth, that perhaps over the next decade or so, if the progress of settling treaties continues and we get a couple or three or more in place, then we may be able to take from all of those different documents a kind of off-the-shelf, or a menu at least, that we can choose from, which may well prove ultimately to produce (a) shorter documents and (b) a considerably accelerated and shortened process. So I don't disagree with the member's concern.
The severalty issue obviously is a complex one, and members are quite right to question: "What does that mean?" We don't know entirely. I think the member for Peace River North had the right question -- that if we have seen other things change in the historical treaty as time has passed and as we have evolved, if you will, in these matters, the question is: "Have the arrangements and the requirements for severalty also changed?" We will find those things out; we will have those discussions in committee stage. He was asking more particularly
I should make clear that we're not talking about severalty in general. The question, as I recall, had more particularly to do with what rights one did give up if one took the land in severalty. We know for sure that those individuals who take their share, if you will, in fee simple land -- some quarter section of land -- still remain status Indians. They are not required to give up that status, which historically they would have, as I understand the old treaty.
But the other questions are still a little bit murky, and the people best to answer, of course, will be the federal government. We will certainly get answers to those questions. I think they are legitimate ones for us to consider in committee stage of this debate, and we shall do so.
I suppose the only thing I would add to all of this is that I appreciate very much the points made by members on both sides of the House. I want to thank my friend from Coquitlam-Maillardville for giving us a little of that history that, quite frankly, most of us don't know. That was appreciated. I think we are doing something very good with this particular measure, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased, then, to now formally move second reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Lovick: I call now Bill 12. Oh, I'm sorry; it's such a rush, you know, when you succeed so readily. I move that the bill now be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 10, McLeod Lake Indian Band Treaty No. 8 Adhesion and Settlement Agreement Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick: I notice that the Clerk even handed me a copy of the motion. He was really worried I'd forgotten, although this is probably not a bad strategy.
I now want to call, if I may, Bill 12.
REGULATORY STREAMLINING
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
(second reading)
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
Bill 12 is the latest step in modernizing government for the twenty-first century. This bill simplifies, it streamlines, it improves efficiencies, and it increases fairness for business done in British Columbia. Bill 12 is yet another part of the streamlining initiative that began back in May of 1998 with the appointment of the Business Task Force, which brings together business, labour and government in a positive and productive way to modernize the way we do business in our province.
[1655]
Aspects of this bill will streamline the calculation of tax within the mining industry, allowing them to spend less time filling out their tax forms and more time creating jobs for British Columbians. Amendments to the Mineral Tax Act will make it simpler for quarry operators to calculate and pay taxes on a number of industrial minerals. The amendments will remove costs associated with keeping quarries and processing facilities as separate legal entities, as well as reduce the costs of calculating the tax itself.
Bill 12 will also amend the Forest Act. It will do so in a way that streamlines timber-mark administration and woodlot licence transfers. The amendments will reduce the number of timber marks that must be issued to harvest timber on private land and will also harmonize timber-mark expiration dates with the applicable woodlot licence, tree farm licence or community forest agreement. The amendments will eliminate paperwork for licensees, freeing them to spend less time filling out forms and more time working on the land.
Some amendments improve both efficiency and fairness. For example, currently the Islands Trust Act requires the minister's consent before a trustee can acquire land in the trust area. Bill 12 will eliminate this discrimination by applying the same provisions as other local government members in relation to the financial interests and conflicts of interest, by applying the appropriate Financial Disclosure Act requirements and Municipal Act provisions.
A number of amendments in Bill 12 relate to application and approval processes under various statutes. A change in the definition of geophysical exploration under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act will expedite the approval processes related to geophysical activities conducted in a well. Application and approval processes are also streamlined under the Land Act regarding dispositions of unsurveyed Crown land and for integrated survey areas under the Land Survey Act. Authorized activities on Crown land reserves -- such as ports, harbours, air navigation markers and fisheries facilities -- are clarified.
Bill 12 also recognizes that one size does not fit all in British Columbia. The School Act right now requires the minister to establish for each school district whether trustees are to be elected from the school district at large or from a number of trustee electoral areas. Bill 12 eliminates this "one size fits all" by amending the School Act to allow trustees to be elected from a combination of the district at large and trustee electoral
[ Page 15500 ]
areas. This will help districts determine the trustee distribution that best balances the concerns of citizens in remote areas with those in more populous areas.
As well, Bill 12 will reduce administration costs for school boards and the Francophone Education Authority, as they will no longer be required to send records of minutes to the Minister of Education.
Hon. Speaker, Bill 12 is an important step in ensuring that unnecessary red tape is cut and that regulations which are no longer required are scrapped. While the separate provisions of the bill may seem small taken in isolation, collectively each amendment contributes to the modernizing of government by simplifying, streamlining, improving efficiencies and increasing fairness in British Columbia. I am very pleased to be able to move second reading of Bill 12.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad to cede my spot to the Minister of Agriculture, I believe it is.
Hon. C. Evans: I want to speak in favour of the two sections on rural taxation and farm taxation of the bill in order to explain to members who might not understand them why I think they are quite a wonderful thing.
The first change is really pretty simple. We have had legislation in British Columbia for some time that allows the 2,000 farmers with a summer or fall crop to delay paying their taxes till the time when they actually sell their once-a-year product. However, that delay requires that the farmer remember to file a special paper by the time their taxes are due every single year. Many people don't remember and consequently are late, and then they lose their right to pay in the fall. Plus, there is a government expense in looking after all those pieces of paper.
What this change does, in layperson's language, is give a farmer the right to apply and -- as long as auditing information says that they are in the same business on the same land and paid their taxes the last year -- allow them to pay their taxes after harvest every year in the future. It reduces the amount of paperwork the farmer has to go through, and it also reduces the amount of paperwork the government has to go through.
[1700]
The last thing I'll say on this subject is that it was actually the farmers who asked us to do this. For the 2,000 people who are making their living in the farming business, this is good legislation.
The other change is even simpler. It simply brings the possibility of paying your farm taxes into the twentieth century. You could pay with a cheque or money order or the traditional ways of paying your taxes. This change will simply allow people to pay their taxes from farm community by computer or by telephone or by any of the modern methods of banking technology. This is also something that the farming community has asked for. That's why I hope all members will be able to support what I think are incredibly simple and logical steps to reduce the amount of paperwork and trauma.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have very few words to say to the bill. It is, once again, one of those bills that is made up of a multitude of sections from a variety of legislation that's currently on the books. The intent is to modernize and remove sections of legislation that either aren't serving their purpose anymore or aren't serving their purpose as well as they could be -- to repeal and/or make changes. None of them are of a major controversial nature. In fact, this is one of those bills that actually is housekeeping, by definition.
I know that some of my colleagues who have particular issues with certain sections and are in command of certain pieces of legislation reflected in sections in this bill will have a couple of questions in committee stage, but I don't expect that to take a great deal of time. With that I offer our support for Bill 12.
Hon. D. Lovick: On behalf of the minister, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 12, Regulatory Streamlining Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick: I would now like to call committee on Bill 3.
BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 3; T. Stevenson in the chair.
[1705]
The Chair: Yesterday, during consideration of section 97 of Bill 3, the minister moved an amendment, which is currently before us. The amendment would add section 4.1 to the bill and not a subsection to section 97. Accordingly, we will deal with the amendment at this time, and when it has been disposed of, we will revert to section 97.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment, section 4.1, standing in my name on the order paper.
On the amendment.[SECTION 4.1, by adding the following:
Ferry Corporation Act
4.1 Section 16 (1) of the Ferry Corporation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 137, is repealed and the following substituted:
(1) The outstanding debt of the corporation arising from borrowings during the fiscal years ending on March 31, 2001 and March 31, 2002, as calculated under subsection (2), must not exceed $150 million minus the proceeds from the sale during those fiscal years of any ferries owned by the corporation.]
G. Farrell-Collins: What this amendment to propose a new section to the bill does is go back to the B.C. Ferry Corporation Act, section 16 of the act, which is the section that limits the amount of debt that the B.C. Ferry Corporation can
[ Page 15501 ]
incur. It reduces the rate. I think it's $1.3 billion right now; I'm not sure what the actual figure is. The Revised Statutes I have before me have $975 million, but I'm sure we've had to adjust it upwards since then. Perhaps the minister can tell me what the current debt cap is for the B.C. Ferry Corporation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The current debt limit is $1.35 billion.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's interesting, because I'm not sure it should be called the debt cap. More likely it should be called the debt cork, because it tends to float at whatever level the Ferry Corporation decides it would like to set it at. A debt cap, in my mind, is something government sets. It directs the Ferry Corporation, and the Ferry Corporation will live within that. What we have seen over the last number of years is that this debt cap has been ratcheted up year after year.
As I said earlier, the Revised Statutes that are in this chamber have it at $975 million. I recall the debate that took place in the House at the time the government raised it to that level and the warnings that were issued. So it's interesting that it went up further, up to $1.35 billion. Now the government is coming in, after having paid off $1.08 billion, and is reducing that cap down now to $150 million, where it's intended to stay for the next two fiscal years -- this fiscal year and the following fiscal year.
Has B.C. Ferry Corporation put together a debt management plan for the new debt that it's incurring? And is the minister confident that they'll be able to live within that debt cap for the next two fiscal years?
[1710]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I rise to assist the Minister of Finance, as the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries. The five-year capital plan that was announced in the previous days has been to Treasury Board. Treasury Board approved the first year of the capital plan. I think it's around $117 million in terms of the individual expenditures. Within the five-year capital plan -- and indeed the Ferry Corporation has done work out for ten full years -- all of the debt that will be incurred must be managed by the revenues available to the Ferry Corporation as was previously announced. So, yes, there is a debt management plan all within the scope of the current revenues.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister said that the capital plan from B.C. Ferries has gone to Treasury Board and that the first year of it has been approved. This debt cap deals with two fiscal years. Can the minister tell me what the plan is for the second fiscal year and whether or not that's gone to Treasury Board?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm actually doing this from memory, but I'll get you the actual specific plans. The second year of the debt management plan is within the range. The second year will not exceed the $150 million; in fact, it will be under it.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding, then, is that $117 million has been approved by Treasury Board for this fiscal year and that in the second fiscal year $33 million will be the maximum additional debt that could be incurred by B.C. Ferry Corporation for that second fiscal year of the capital plan. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. The debt cap is a cap on the amount of debt that the Ferry Corporation will accumulate. So in the context of the plan, the Ferry Corporation next year will have positive cash flow. Even though there may be an increase in capital expenditures, part of that capital expenditure will be covered off by positive cash flow. Therefore the actual debt that will accumulate will cumulatively not exceed $150 million in the first two years, even though the expenditures may be higher.
G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister is saying that for the next fiscal year -- this fiscal year we're in right now -- B.C. Ferry Corporation, after all operating expenses are paid, after the debt service cost
[1715]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to provide a technical briefing on this with the officials of the corporation. Let me just give you an initial explanation, which is: it's not a surplus. The corporation will not be in the black in the first year; we've already announced that there'll be a $10 million deficit. But because part of the expenses are non-cash expenses -- they're amortization -- that does give a positive cash flow for the first year, and that goes toward the capital expenditures.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would have been pleased to have had a technical briefing on this amendment, but it was introduced to the House about two minutes to 6 p.m. last night. It would have been good to have it in advance, but that's fine. I guess we'll have to do it here, and I have a few questions on it.
As I said earlier, the minister says that the first year of the capital plan has gone to Treasury Board and been approved, but the second year of the capital plan has not yet been approved by Treasury Board. Is that correct?
Hon. J. MacPhail: A five-year capital plan has gone to Treasury Board, and the approval-in-principle of the capital plan has been made by Treasury Board. But Treasury Board, and therefore cabinet, has asked that the specifics of each year come back for approval on a year-by-year basis.
R. Thorpe: When will year 2 of the capital plan be approved by Treasury Board?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The normal process would be as part of the budget-making determinations of Treasury Board, which start sometimes as early as October and finish around mid-January.
R. Thorpe: The reason, I believe, that we have some grave concerns over here is that we've heard these kinds of stories before. We have, if nobody else here
[ Page 15502 ]
How do we get some comfort? How do we get the comfort that the Ferry Corporation is actually going to manage the line-by-line items that are going to eventually get into the cash flow? Where do we get that comfort?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can't actually respond to the reiteration of what occurred at Public Accounts, so I'm not in any way confirming that was the conversation -- either way. But I think the member's comment is fair. What I hope to do as the minister responsible -- soon -- is introduce legislation, amendments to the Ferry Corporation Act, that will actually hold the corporation accountable to
R. Thorpe: If I understood the minister correctly, they've been there for ten years. I believe it was $16 million you started out in debt. You got her up; you got a cap of $1.350 billion. You were going to build fast ferries that were going to cost $210 million; it's going to cost us $500 million. You've had ongoing management, budget and fiscal problems. All of a sudden, in the last weeks of your mandate, now we're going to bring in legislation that is going to make it the responsibility of the B.C. Ferry Corporation and the minister responsible, and that is going to make sure we have sound fiscal management that is now going to allow B.C. Ferries to live within the caps of this amendment. Is that what I understood?
[1720]
Hon. J. MacPhail: You know, we can -- and I certainly accept that the Liberal opposition has decided to make the B.C. Ferry Corporation a political target; fair enough -- have that kind of discussion. Or we can actually deal with what this amendment is about and what the plans for the corporation are.
What this legislation I hope to introduce will do, for the first time, is hold the Ferry Corporation accountable for its own fiscal responsibility and legislate the revenue stream as well. In fact, the B.C. Ferry Corporation has historically, amongst all governments to date
So yes, we've made substantial changes not only in the way that the corporation will be managed and in the way that there will be a capital plan for the next five years and then five years after that but also in the accountability and perhaps the greater independence of the corporation.
D. Symons: I find it astounding that the minister should end up saying: "Well, the Liberals haven't put forth a plan for operating the Ferry Corporation." I think the easiest way for the minister to set that straight is to simply call an election, and we'd be glad to take over the thing.
It's interesting listening to the reasons given or the explanation given, in the sense that we've had somebody responsible for watching the debt of the Ferry Corporation. We've had the Ferry Corporation. We've had Treasury Board. We've had the cabinet. We've had the Crown corporations secretariat. We've had all those groups that had a responsibility -- or should I say irresponsible -- for looking after the debts of the Ferry Corporation as the debt, from 1995 to the current time, went from somewhere in the neighbourhood of $350 million up to its current $1.3 billion.
We have that problem of being, I guess, given comfort by the minister in bringing in this bill, and the comments they've made, due to the past record they have and the very fact that everything they're saying now we've heard over the last few years
Interjection.
D. Symons: As the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said: "Yeah, they mean it this time." Well, I don't really remember them in past years saying: "We mean it this time now." You didn't say those words this time, but it makes it difficult to believe that you really have a handle on it.
As I look through your fiscal plan for this particular year
If we look at this year, you've got $10 million projected for this coming fiscal year. I see nowhere where you're going to be able to change that around, looking at the current figures. But even if you were able to do that, you have now introduced, and talked about a few moments ago, a five-year capital plan. The bill put on that by the Ferry Corporation itself was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400 million over a five-year period.
Divide $400 million by five, for the years, and you get $80 million. Run that program for two years, and you're already over the cap that the Ferry Corporation has by $100 million. Put in the $100 million deficit you're going to have this year, and you've got $20 million over your cap already in the first two years -- if you were spreading your capital plan over each year equally, which I suspect you won't be doing. But if you were, that would be the outcome of what you're doing.
Besides that, you have within the capital plan a fair number of things -- and, I will admit, some of them are necessary things that have to be done with the Ferry Corporation -- that will contribute year by year to more and more capital expenses. So although we may look at a capital debt cap of $150 million for the first two years, that will simply balloon in the third year as you try and catch up with this capital plan you've got. You'll simply come before this House with another amendment to raise that cap higher.
What comfort can you give, other than the words you've already given us, that what I've said is not correct?
[1725]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that, because the minister responsible for Ferries is here, we are ranging far and wide into B.C. Ferry's operation. We are looking, really, at issues that are addressed in the performance plan -- in the five-year capital plan of the corporation -- and its expectations that it will be in a very positive position in a short time. We believe that the new debt cap that we are proposing in this legislation fits the capital needs of the corporation well. Because of posi-
[ Page 15503 ]
tive cash flow, they expect, both this year and next, that the actual borrowings will be less than the capital plan. Therefore the $150 million debt cap is eminently reachable.
I would also point out to members of the chamber and those watching that the actual language of this amendment reads: "
D. Symons: I think only the NDP could end up saying that what is in their proposed budget for this year -- a $10 million deficit -- is a positive cash flow. I mean, I have real problems with what the minister is saying. Maybe that's the real problem between that side of the House and this side: we don't consider debt to be a positive cash flow.
I do have concerns, again, and I think it's relevant to this particular amendment that we're looking at on this bill, that before we talk about a debt cap, we'd better be sure that that is going to be a cap that stays at that level. So can the minister explain how you're going to carry on that program -- which, I said a few moments ago, averages out to $80 million a year, if we're going to do that capital program for the Ferry Corporation over five years -- and how you're going to manage to have your cash flow catch up to the $10 million deficit you'll have this year, plus the $80 million per year you'll be spending on a capital program? You've got to have, then, close to $100 million on the plus side of your ledgers, or revenues over expenses, in order to be able to manage to stay within that cap.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The minister responsible did offer technical briefing to the members opposite. I also thought I heard her explain rather clearly that while net income was expected to be negative by some $10 million this year, there were non-cash expenditures related to amortization considerably greater than that. The result at the end of the day would be a net positive cash flow from operations for B.C. Ferries. You are sitting next to an accountant, and I'm sure he can tell you exactly what this means -- okay?
Because of that, the net debt that the Ferry Corporation will be assuming over the next five years, under the capital plan that they have submitted, will fit within this debt cap. We are saying that for the next two years this is eminently doable. We think that this puts in place the right sort of discipline within B.C. Ferry Corporation.
I know this is fascinating, to poke into all sorts of nooks and crannies of B.C. Ferry Corporation. What this amendment does, very simply, is say the debt cap in legislation right now is $1.35 billion. The amendment proposes that that be lowered to $150 million. For those of us on this side of the House, we think this is a thing to be done, and we will be supporting this amendment.
[1730]
R. Thorpe: I realize that it's very, very hard, because the Finance ministers around here change so quickly, they can't remember what revision of what debt plan we're on. British Columbians have been told time after time that we're not going to spend
My question, though, to the minister is: have you and your officials actually gone through and done a very detailed cash flow analysis from starting today
Hon. P. Ramsey: B.C. Ferry Corporation has done such a cash flow analysis on a quarterly basis, not month by month. They presented the results to Treasury Board. Treasury Board staff have analyzed it with them. Both Ferry Corporation and Treasury Board have comfort that it fits within this debt cap.
R. Thorpe: I want to understand one thing here. Technically the Ferry Corp does not do monthly cash flow analysis and reports against monthly; they just do it quarterly. Is that correct?
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member asked about forecasts, not reporting, and I responded about forecasts on which this debt cap was based. It was done on a quarterly basis.
R. Thorpe: It's interesting that we've been able to do that when we haven't finalized year 2 of our capital plan. It's amazing that we could do that. What I would ask the minister
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: Oh, oh. Now we've got the expert from Cowichan here.
Would he please table by noon tomorrow a copy of the detailed cash flow analysis -- detailed, detailed -- that supports the amendment to this bill?
Hon. P. Ramsey: A fine question. I hope you have a good time probing them with the minister during estimates. Here we are looking at a debt cap. The question before us is: shall the debt cap for B.C. Ferries be reduced from $1.35 billion to $150 million? We believe that this is an appropriate way of dealing with B.C. Ferries. The member talks about a five-year capital plan not being approved. I'm not sure he heard clearly what this side of the House said. We have approved in principle that sort of five-year plan that B.C. Ferries tabled. We've said, for each individual year, that we want B.C. Ferries to come back for formal approval of that plan. Approval of year 2 will be done in conjunction with budget preparation for 2001-2002; that's when the formal approval of that second year will be done.
The amount of money that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is projecting for capital in the second year -- and in the first year -- fits within this debt cap, given the operations of the corporation and their positive cash flow from operations. We've canvassed that fairly thoroughly.
[1735]
[ Page 15504 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: The question actually is whether or not the government should have a right to any debt cap and whether or not we can believe the debt cap that the government is putting forward in the form of this amendment now, because in the past we've been unable to do that. The government has repeatedly brought in a debt cap and said, "Yeah, that's it," and then the next year another one, and another one.
Certainly there was a capital plan back then, just like there's a capital plan now. There was a ten-year capital plan. It had gone to Treasury Board; Crown corporations secretariat had approved it. It was well known; it was announced and reannounced and announced again, over and over again. There were no surprises there. But every year the government came back to the House and raised the debt cap even further -- further and further.
I understand the minister's frustration, but perhaps he can understand ours, in that we're being asked to approve an amendment that creates a debt cap for this ministry, for ferries, of $150 million. We have absolutely nothing other than the minister's word -- the word of two ministers -- that this is actually going to be the debt cap a year from now or two years from now if they, heaven forbid, receive a new mandate. I hope the minister can understand that we're somewhat reticent just to take the word of the ministers for it.
Over the past number of years in Ferries estimates -- where we have probed extensively about the debt, the capital plan, the debt management plan at B.C. Ferries, the way the capital projects were going to be implemented -- we were assured repeatedly by a string of ministers that everything was fine, that the government was hitting its targets. B.C. Ferries was doing well, and they were building for the future. Everything was going to be wonderful. Through a string of ministers, through a string of years, through a string of estimates debates and also through debates in this House on various debt caps, we have been told repeatedly that everything was fine.
Then we find out, Mr. Chairman, in a memo that was written December 17, 1998, the words that follow, which I just found shocking when I received this yesterday. This is from the treasurer of the B.C. Ferry Corporation on December 17, 1998, and he's sending it to the cabinet planning and communications secretariat, CPCS, so it landed on Tom Gunton's desk. It went to the Crown corporations secretariat; it went to Treasury Board; it went to the capital division in the Ministry of Finance -- all the people that are supposed to know what's going on with the capital plans and how well the government is doing on its way to hitting or exceeding its debt cap. It says as follows:
So going back probably to the end of 1996, government acknowledged the fact internally -- not to the public and certainly not in this House -- that the B.C. Ferry Corporation was technically insolvent. Without a letter from the Minister of Finance making it clear that they would guarantee that debt and that the debt would be covered, they would have had to put a statement on their financial statements that they were in fact insolvent. Going concern; it isn't something small."As you know, B.C. Ferries' insolvent financial position has required for the last two years that the Minister of Finance provide a letter of commitment to our auditors to avoid a 'going concern' qualification in our corporate financial statements. In last year's letter, the Minister of Finance stated that the corporation and the province would be working to put a financial framework in place to sustain the corporation.
"To that end, we have made three submissions to Treasury Board and cabinet since November 1997, seeking direction on the issue."
It goes back several years, almost four years -- three or four years -- that B.C. Ferry Corporation, Treasury Board members, the Minister of Finance, the Ministry of Finance, Cupcakes, Tom Gunton, the Premier, everybody who was involved in any of this, knew that the Ferry Corporation was technically insolvent. That's what the treasurer of B.C. Ferry Corporation said. Yet year after year we were being told in this House that everything was fine: "This is all part of the capital plan." We were being told, year after year, when the debt cap was raised: "Don't worry; it's just part of the capital plan. Everything's working fine."
On December 17, 1998
[1740]
Maybe my colleagues can help me, but I don't recall the Minister of Finance or a minister in charge of the Crown corporations secretariat or a minister of ferries ever standing in this House and telling us that B.C. Ferry Corporation was technically insolvent. The treasurer of B.C. Ferries was saying that within government, but they weren't telling us. They weren't telling the people who were going to pay the bills. Throughout all that period of time, it looks like for two years, the government knew this was happening and did nothing to solve it, because the B.C. Ferry Corporation had made three submissions to Treasury Board and cabinet since November 1997. So in the one-year period, anyway, since November 1997 to November or December 1998, three separate submissions were made to Treasury Board and cabinet about the very issue of the fact that the B.C. Ferry Corporation was insolvent, and not once did a minister stand up in this House and tell us, despite questioning.
You'll understand us if we're a little bit hesitant to just take your word for it that everything's fine now, that there's a new capital plan, that we're getting rid of the debt and everything's fine: "Don't worry. It won't get out of hand this time. We've got it solved. We have a revenue stream. Everything's taken care of. We've got positive cash flow. Hey, yeah, we had a rough time for a couple years of but it's okay now, and we've just sort of put this debt over here, and everything's fine." And we're expected to just say: "Oh, great, perfect. Okay, let's move on."
I understand that the minister might like the opposition just to say: "Okay, well, thank you for finally cleaning that up. Gee, that's really too bad. Gee, this is good thing that you're reducing the debt cap to $150 million." Yes, $150 million is better than $1.35 billion, but I don't believe for a second that even this fall the minister might not come back with another amendment at the last minute and increase it again. Given the track record of the government, that could very easily happen. In fact, given the track record of the government, it's a probability that it will happen.
[ Page 15505 ]
The minister can understand, perhaps, some of the more probing questions by members to try and determine whether there actually is a real plan behind this. I must say, and I know I've chatted with the minister back and forth across the floor here, that this bill has been on the order paper since the budget was introduced in March -- April, now May. So six weeks it's been on the order paper. Just yesterday, after debate on this section had gone on for some time, a few minutes before close of debate, before the House was to adjourn at 6 o'clock, the minister stands up and introduces this amendment all of a sudden. How long has the government been planning this debt cap? Since Monday? Since Treasury Board? The minister says Treasury Board develops this stuff. It went to Treasury Board in the fall, starting in October. It was finished about mid-January. I'm assuming, then, that B.C. Ferry Corporation's new capital plan had been approved by Treasury Board some time before the budget was introduced. Would I be wrong in thinking that? Was the capital plan thought of before the budget was introduced? Perhaps I can ask the minister that question.
Hon. P. Ramsey: First of all, I don't in any way mean to suggest that the members opposite shouldn't be probing in their questions about the operations of B.C. Ferries or the operations of Bill 3 and the proposals that we're putting before the House. That's the function of this place, and I expect probing questions. That's fine. I think that's what we should have in this place.
There are two points I would make. The members asks: "Why was the amendment developed?" I would say it was out of an excess of caution, very recently. The issue that actually arose after the Budget Measures Implementation Act was tabled was that we already have in place controls on B.C. Ferry debt through approval in general of a capital plan by Treasury Board and then year-by-year approval of specific year-by-year expenditures. We have new performance plans that the corporation and others are putting forward.
If the members review the Ferry Corporation plan for the coming year, it shows a $10 million deficit overall. But there's $59 million of non-cash items, which means they have a positive cash flow this year. I suspect that as estimates go on, there'll be lots of probing questions about what the out years looked at and how they intersect with the capital plan. That's fine.
[1745]
The internal question for me as Minister of Finance was: given all that, surely there's no way that B.C. Ferries Corporation and the current debt cap of $1.35 billion
So it has been before us. We think it's another step in making sure that we have the right controls in place with B.C. Ferries to make sure that it continues to provide a fiscally sound service to the folks living in coastal British Columbia. I would hope that after the debate ends and the probing ends -- which, as I say, I have no problem with -- we'll have a positive vote on this amendment from all sides.
G. Farrell-Collins: It would seem to me that when the minister was drafting the legislation -- or the legislation was being drafted -- to implement the budget to write off the debt of the B.C. Ferry Corporation
The minister can understand the suspicion. He may have heard some of the snickering from our side of the House when he was standing and answering the last question. It's perhaps indicative of just how hard it is regardless of who the minister is -- no personal slight intended to the current Minister of Finance
The minister can understand the cynicism from this side of the House. The cynicism is reflective of what we hear from the general public. They've been watching for a number of years too. It's just very, very hard, on these areas, to believe, quite frankly, whether the minister intends or not
We could probably talk about that for a day. I don't intend to do that. But you know, the public doesn't believe it; we don't believe it.
It's fine to introduce the amendment, and it'll pass. It's certainly better than $1.35 billion. But no one on this side of the House believes that the government won't be back to make a change at some later date -- and it may not even be that late a date. I fully expect that we could be back this fall and in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act sometime this fall buried on page 26 at the very bottom, there'll be a change to the Ferry Corporation Act, to the debt management or to the debt cap.
I'm not consoled, either, by the comments of the minister currently responsible for B.C. Ferries that she's going to bring in legislation that will hold B.C. Ferries accountable for its debt. And if they don't, what happens? The taxpayers write it off. They pay for it again. It's not like you can penalize the people in charge of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.
What I'd like to see is legislation that holds the government ministers to account for what's going on at the Crown corporations and the departments that are under their administration. It's very easy to bring in legislation that puts the blame at the board level or the CEO level or the treasurer level or the project manager level and to say, "We're going to hold those people to account," when the ministers themselves aren't willing to hold themselves to the same standards. So I don't believe that that's going to make any difference.
[1750]
Section 16 of the Ferry Corporation Act has had a debt cap in it since as long as I've been here. It didn't matter. Every time the debt went high, the government just ratcheted it up again. I don't think anything else that the minister's going to
[ Page 15506 ]
add in legislation is going to make any difference anyway, because the Ferry Corporation will do what it wants to do. Until government starts to be personally accountable and starts to hold people that work with them accountable, it won't matter. Nothing that this government can do, in the form of legislation or standing up and making promises that we've all heard before, is going to convince this side of the House or the public, at all, that this government is going to be any more successful in managing the B.C. Ferry Corporation in the future than it has been in the past.
We're glad to have this amendment go through. I don't think it makes much difference at the end of the day. I'll just be flipping through the miscellaneous statutes acts this fall looking for the amendment that will change it yet again.
Amendment approved.
On section 97.
D. Symons: I have concerns as I expressed before, but you know, we did have a business plan for B.C. Ferries supposedly. I know we had one because I asked the minister for the business plan in 1996, '97, '98 and '99. I was assured there was a business plan. I didn't get it until an FOI produced the business plan -- heavily severed, I might add, so that it was 15 useless pages of paper -- in January of 1999.
The minister said a few moments ago that you do have a plan and that the Ferry Corporation has a fiscal management plan. It would be really helpful to us -- although you're going to push this through before we'll get it -- if you would make a commitment to us that we can have that plan in our hands within a week. Can that commitment be made?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I will make that commitment, and I would be happy to explore it with all members during estimates.
D. Symons: I would hope that the minister would be able to have that so that we can have it prior to the estimates, rather than
My real concern is that we got into this mess, and we're now looking for a $1.08 billion bailout of the Ferry Corporation. But it's not a bailout in a sense that it removes that debt. It just shifts it from one group of people that are responsible for it to the taxpayer that's responsible for it.
I also asked the minister -- various ministers as years went by, but I think two ministers back, when he was minister for the most number of years during the construction of the fast ferry program
I have no comfort that the attitude of this government is simply: "Well, you're chasing numbers around on a page." The attitude of this government has been, "Well, the debt really doesn't matter; it's something we can look at another day," and the "other day" is a moving horizon that never arises, except what we have now. That day has come to us, and we now find that somehow the Ferry Corp
Now we're trying to clean up that mess, but I don't know whether the attitude that produced the mess has changed at all. I haven't really heard too much from either minister that indeed that is the case. I think that's a real concern and the concern that we're asking the questions on here. Have we any comfort that the attitude that allowed what happened over those years to get to the stage that we're trying to deal with today has changed?
[1755]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I just heard the minister responsible stand up and say that she'd be pleased to provide the member, before estimates, with the corporation's projection in the out-years, so that you'd have a chance to explore them thoroughly with her. I think this is a significant change.
You're right now debating a performance plan -- or taking numbers from a performance plan -- that was tabled in this House as part of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which we are going to be debating in this chamber in the near future. And finally, hon. member, I think you've seen this government take some very difficult decisions, one of which we're debating -- rescinding $1.8 billion in debt, a writing-down of the value of the fast cat program, and imposing a debt cap considerably lower than we've seen in this House in many years. I think all of those are symbols of our commitment to get it right.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. I won't say that I'm totally satisfied with it. We've seen plans given to us before, too, and figures shown to us, and we find out how they change. I think we'll have to save that for another day. Noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call private members' statements.
LIFE AFTER POLITICS
J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, a few weeks ago I passed the 65-year milestone. [Applause.] Let the record show there was
[ Page 15507 ]
great applause. It is simply a moment in time of one's life, but our society honours that milestone with the commencement of none other than the Canada pension. It is generally considered the usual time to retire from employment.
Here I am at an age when it is supposed to be okay to retire, yet I have this job as an MLA that goes at least until after the next election. I am about to announce when that's going to be, and that will make this a good-news story -- no, just kidding.
While I'm okay with that rite of passage into an age group we've referred to as, well, aging, it gives me occasion to think about it.
Two questions confront me: will I succeed in a new career called retirement? And is there life after politics? We are now looking at the shift from the baby boom to the seniors surge. People are living longer, remaining active, choosing the option to continue to work for pay, finding fulfilment through volunteerism and taking up sports such as kayaking, hang gliding and parachuting.
[1800]
I read about an 84-year-old woman still cycling, swimming and running in triathlons, and that was reported on one of the TV journals the other day. Recently Tim Pollock of Coquitlam announced his project for his seventy-fifth year -- cycling from Seattle to Washington, D.C., with members of a team raising money for the Heart and Lung Foundation. We had a send-off for Tim in Coquitlam the other day, and a great many people showed up to pledge support for that very good work. Floyd Bolton of Coquitlam entered the Vancouver Sun marathon -- his first, at age 75 -- and he came in fourth in his age group.
A group called Habitat for Humanity, made famous by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, builds housing for low-income people. Right now a lot of seniors are working on one of their projects in Burnaby. Gloria Levy, who is a former councillor in Coquitlam, is taking a lead role in enabling that project to take place. Indeed, she did some very effective lobbying with our government to gain assistance in achieving land on which they could do their volunteer work to help ensure that families would have the benefit of decent and affordable housing -- housing that they would have title to after that project was concluded.
Due to better health care, safer work environments and better standards of living, we are sticking around a lot longer. There is tremendous potential for community improvement when you pool the talents of retired workers -- carpenters, nurses, teachers, doctors, government employees, bus drivers. The possibilities are enormous. The answer to the first question is: yes, the opportunity is there to have an exciting new career in retirement.
The second question -- is there life after politics? -- no doubt has the same answer. MLAs have learned their craft right here in the school of hard knocks. MLAs first coming into the Legislature are thrown off the deep end. No amount of orientation sessions or training sessions or public-speaking sessions can prepare them for what they encounter when they come into this arena and into other elements of the public arena. They learn to survive, to speak on a specific subject with a moment's notice, to cut red tape for a constituent, to run a committee, to build consensus and to interact with radio, print and TV media. Developing policy, preparing legis- lation, critiquing proposals and communicating decisions give MLAs valuable experience and a variety of skills that could find useful applications after politics.
Public opinion surveys indicate that politicians generally are not held in high esteem compared to other vocations. Teachers, bus drivers and postal workers have positive ratings, while politicians are opinion-poll bottom dwellers, along with lawyers and reporters. This is unfortunate. I don't think it's unfortunate about the lawyers and reporters, but I think it's unfortunate about the politicians. Entering my fifteenth year in this place and having observed politicians from at least five parties, I have a positive view. First of all, we agree on at least 80 percent of what is decided in this Legislature. That the remaining 20 percent involves MLAs passionately arguing for their values, their policy and their constituents is a net benefit to our society.
[1805]
Well, the benefits of the experience need not end there. The skills learned and developed, along with the passion for improving the human community, are needed in a variety of contexts. As well as the needs of our communities, there are global challenges -- or we might say opportunities.
CUSO is a Canadian organization which supports alliances for global social justice. They work with people striving for freedom, self-determination, gender and racial equality and cultural survival. They achieve their goals by sharing information and human and material resources and by promoting policies for developing global sustainability. CUSO recruits cooperants who are Canadian professionals with valuable expertise in human rights, community economic development, the environment and more. They are individuals who dedicate up to two years of their lives working with CUSO's development partners in Asia-Pacific, Africa, the Americas and the Caribbean on initiatives of local and global importance. CUSO has been recruiting cooperants from across Canada since 1961.
The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Your time has expired.
The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi to reply.
T. Nebbeling: I am really pleased to reply to the speech by the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. First of all, I'd like to give him my early congratulations for reaching a milestone that obviously is very important for the member and has triggered for the member the thought process of what is beyond the years in this House.
I think it is a question that we, as members of this House and most likely other elected people in other forms of government ask themselves as well. I certainly have done this. I'm getting closer to the mark that the member is saying that he is reaching soon. I should say that recently, when I passed the fifty-fifth year and received a notification from an organization representing cinemas that told me that now that I had passed the fifty-fifth year of my life, I was qualified to receive a $3 discount on Tuesday afternoons if I chose to visit cinemas, I was not pleased to receive that notice. I thought it was premature. But nevertheless, at that time I was also thinking, "What am I going to do now that people begin to see me in that group that one of these days will retire?" -- although my retirement is off for a while.
The member focused what I have done in the past when thinking about what I would do after I'm finished in this
[ Page 15508 ]
House -- how to assist organizations that can get so much benefit from what we learn in this House. I truly believe that in spite of what from time to time is very confrontational and doesn't seem to be very productive, at the end of the time, when we decide to go somewhere else from this House, we all take with us a lot more than we came into this House with.
I like the member, when I come to that point, will do what he is looking at as well, and that is focus on how I can give what I've learned here. And the contacts, maybe, that I've made -- how can I share that to the benefit of these organizations that often cannot afford to pay for that kind of knowledge? So I am truly thrilled to hear the member saying that that is the direction he is looking at as well.
At the other end, we should also recognize that we have a lot of members who were much younger when they came into this House. After one, two or maybe three terms, I think they also may well have to ask themselves: "Is there indeed a life after government?" That's where the career opportunity or the career choices will have to come into play. Again, for these members, it will be a different type of question. It will be more focused on "What am I going to do with the rest of my life?" and "How am I going to make my life fulfilling?" and "What kind of career can I pursue?"
I think, having been in this House for a number of years and having learned many, many things and having given much to the community
[1810]
J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the hon. member for sharing his very considered thoughts on this subject.
Continuing on with some global agencies that I think are opportunities for MLAs that reach retirement age -- whatever that may be -- CUSO has been in Africa in a very significant way. They collaborated with partner organizations in the struggle against poverty. They attempt to win respect for human rights, and attempt to gain equity for women in the struggle to secure access to land. Cooperants also work towards the implementation of productive and sustainable agricultural practices and help to facilitate greater cooperation across regions.
Hon. Speaker, we hear so much of the sad stories coming out of the continent of Africa, but the fact is that there are places there where people who are indigenous to that continent, along with others, are working very hard, and successfully in many ways, to address many of the issues where what they need is not someone to come in and take over but someone to come in and help in the way that they would direct. There are still other agencies such as Oxfam, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders and UNESCO that have programs addressing critical needs in developing countries. Developing countries often require assistance in developing government programs and land planning, rural development, water protection, pollution prevention and reclamation of agricultural lands.
In my time here I have been amazed at the level of expertise that exists within this House in many of these areas. In particular, I believe that developing democracies need the expertise of those who have worked as legislators in the parliaments of the land. Hon. Speaker, are we needed after politics? Both locally and globally, the needs abound. Is there life after politics? You bet there is.
CLEARING THE AIR ON
THE SUMAS POWER PROJECT
B. Penner: I'd like to speak tonight about an issue that has gained great notoriety in recent months in the Fraser Valley and has resulted in considerable public concern. I'm a long-time resident of Chilliwack and grew up in the Fraser Valley, and I can remember when air-quality concerns first became common. By my recollection, it was during the year of Expo 86 in Vancouver. People from all over the world discovered the beauty and opportunity available in British Columbia that year. The weather was great, with lots of warm sunshine during the summer. The world's fair was a great success, and many people credit Expo 86 for setting the stage for B.C.'s last economic boom in the late 1980s.
That year marked another turning point. It was the first summer that I remember seeing a persistent haze of brown smog over Chilliwack that lasted for days. Since then, that haze seems to return whenever we get a few nice days of warm weather. Many times I've stood atop our local mountains watching with dismay as smog rolls across the valley floor, advancing relentlessly from the west. When I was much younger, my father delighted in pointing out Vancouver Island and Puget Sound to me after we had climbed to the top of Mount Cheam and other local peaks. Sadly, that view just isn't visible anymore on most summer days.
But smog isn't just ugly; it's unhealthy. Some studies suggest that more people now die from air pollution in California than from car accidents. Ironically, a large percentage of that air pollution comes from automobiles, so in many ways cars are actually killing more people today than ever before.
[1815]
In the Fraser Valley we are facing the threat of even more air pollution. An American corporation wants to build a fossil-fuel-burning power plant in Sumas, Washington. That's just across the border south of Abbotsford. Our geography, combined with prevailing southwesterly winds, keeps pollution hemmed up against the mountains in the eastern Fraser Valley. Powerful summer sunshine interacts with the microscopic particles in the air, triggering a chemical reaction that results in smog.
It's obvious to me that a densely populated area with our geography and our weather is not the place to locate such a power plant. In fact, a senior vice-president of B.C. Hydro told me just last week that he wouldn't even think about suggesting building a power plant in our area, due to environmental considerations.
[ Page 15509 ]
So what is it that is planned for Sumas, Washington? A U.S. company known as Sumas Energy 2 Inc. has plans to construct and operate a 660-megawatt fossil-fuel burning power plant. There already exists a 125-megawatt power plant in the same location. But this expansion would be dramatic. It would require the construction of 230,000-volt power lines to the B.C. Hydro grid near Abbotsford. That is what most of the concern in Abbotsford centres on: the proposal to build new power lines.
However, in the upper Fraser Valley, east of Abbotsford, the concern centres mostly on the resulting air pollution, because as I stated earlier, the prevailing winds come from the southwest, taking pollutants directly from Sumas up the Fraser Valley. I have obtained documents produced by the company and filed with an agency known as the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, which indicate that this new plant is expected to emit nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, benzene, formaldehyde and lead. Further, the company's own report states that decreased visibility in scenic areas could occur.
While the corporation maintains that increased air emissions will result, they continue to claim that it won't severely or adversely impact air quality. Well, I just can't see how you can pump thousands of pounds of particulate matter, including toxic chemicals, into our air without it having it some serious impact on our already dubious air quality in the Fraser Valley.
I look forward to hearing the comments of the member opposite, and I'll conclude at the appropriate time.
D. Streifel: I enjoyed the member's comments, particularly, in a way, the walk down memory lane on what the air quality used to be like. I was born in the city of Vancouver and raised there, and moved to the Fraser Valley when I was married in the 1970s. I remember the early days of the smoke and smog warnings, when my family and all our neighbours
We like to think that we've progressed beyond that in cleaning up our air, but it appears that what's happened is that we have replaced one polluting source with another. That's primarily the automobile. Our chosen method of transportation is one of the reasons why British Columbia has established pretty well the toughest regime in Canada on automobile pollutants, with the testing of motor vehicles and the air-quality standards that we demand in the emissions from our vehicles.
But we're here to talk about the Sumas power plant. I've been on the public record for a number of years now -- over two years -- as opposing the establishment of the power plant in Sumas, Washington. As I read the local papers, I am aware that the members opposite -- the member for Chilliwack, the member for Matsqui and the member for Abbotsford as well -- are opposed to the establishment of this power plant.
I had some involvement in the early days of the expansion of the James sewage treatment plant in Abbotsford, with the initiative to bring domestic sewage from Sumas, Washington -- the expansion of the subdivisions there -- to be treated in Canada as a way of protecting the Fraser River water supply from pollutants. In no way do I want to reverse that trend by bringing heavy-metal-laden wastewater from this proposed treatment plant to the James treatment plant.
[1820]
All levels of government have a role to play here. The Abbotsford city council has given mixed signals on this issue over the past number of years, with the mayor being publicly in favour, even with all the knowledge of the power lines and the treatment plant. The chair of the Fraser Valley regional district has a role to play. That individual, Mayor Randy Hawes of Mission, would like to stand in this place one day, and he has the opportunity to work with us to not bring wastewater from the treatment plant here.
The establishment of the plant itself on American soil is primarily an American problem, an American issue. But where we can plan a role, a united role, and stand in opposition to this, is that we don't have to take the power lines into Canada. We don't have to bring their wastewater into this country to be treated. I believe that is the legitimate role for us to play, as we do have legitimate concerns for our air and, in particular, water quality in the Fraser Valley.
I look forward to the opportunity in the future of working more with the opposition members on the fight against this proposal. I have had many letters from constituents in the Fraser Valley on their general regional concerns. I have also taken the opportunity to write to the National Energy Board, to Michel Mantha, and express my opposition to the project and my support for our constituents on this issue. I haven't written yet, I believe, to the city of Abbotsford or the Fraser Valley regional district. They've probably read my comments in the paper, but perhaps I've been remiss. I should undertake to put to them formally on paper my opposition to this project and why.
I have also discussed the project with Washington State Representative Kelli Linville, who represents the area around Sumas. I've grown to know Kelli through my work as the Minister of Fisheries on water issues and fish issues. We've talked about the treatment of domestic sewage in the James plant as a good thing for our water quality in the Fraser Valley and the Fraser system, and in particular about how it benefits development on both sides of the river. It establishes a cash flow and a revenue flow for the Fraser Valley regional district. Some $100,000 (U.S.) a year are garnered by treating that domestic sewage.
But we have never, ever discussed the bringing of wastewater from a power generation plant. It would be loaded with mercury and other pollutants, and it's not appropriate. We have enough trouble with the water quality in the Fraser River. The lives of the sturgeon, the habitat for the sturgeon and the other resident groundfish in the river would be severely impacted by the transport and importation of more heavy metals into that water system.
Just in closing, I welcome support from the members opposite on this issue. As I say, I've been involved with it for a couple of years now. I welcome their involvement, and maybe they'll work with me, with the other members -- the political members in the Fraser Valley, particularly in the regional district -- to help convince them of the necessity to close this project down before it gets started.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. In final reply, the member for Chilliwack.
[ Page 15510 ]
B. Penner: I agree with the member for Mission-Kent that all three levels of government need to get involved. Unfortunately, to date the NDP government has remained on the sidelines. We've had no formal position taken by the Ministry of Environment in opposition to this plant. In fact, I had to go to a U.S. contact in Washington State in order to obtain a report which was prepared in part by the B.C. Ministry of Environment. This report suggests that a 660-megawatt power plant in Sumas, Washington, would result in the same amount of sulphur dioxide being pumped into our air as 11,900 cars idling along the border. In fact, according to this report, which I have in my hand here, the amount of particulate matter of ten microns or more produced would be the equivalent of 336,000 cars.
So while the member is correct in stating that automobiles are the largest single contributor to air pollution, clearly adding another 336,000 cars or the equivalent thereof -- by allowing Sumas to go ahead -- is the wrong thing to do. I can't for the life of me understand why the provincial Ministry of Environment has remained on the sidelines here and is taking a neutral position.
There are other things we can do besides writing petitions. I mean, individually we have to get control of the automobile. People can drive less; they can take passengers more often; they can use transit wherever it's available. And we can take advantage of new technology when that becomes available -- things like the Ballard fuel cell, for example. But we should also do whatever we can to prevent the equivalent exhaust of almost another 12,000 cars, when it comes to sulphur dioxide, or 300,000 cars, in terms of particulate matter.
[1825]
Like the member opposite, I've written a number of letters and made some contacts. I've written to the Washington State energy facility approval agency, asking that they consider the health of the residents not just on the Canadian side of the border but of the United States residents that live in Sumas and northern Washington State. Their health, too, will be adversely affected.
I've also applied to the National Energy Board -- that's a Canadian agency -- seeking intervener status. I plan to go before that agency and ask that the federal government, through the National Energy Board, not allow the construction of power lines from Washington State into the B.C. Hydro grid at Abbotsford. That is something I would like to see support for from the B.C. government -- the NDP government -- and would welcome their cooperation in that regard.
Clearly if we can make this plant too expensive to build, the private owners won't build it. I've been told in briefings that if they have to build their power lines south to connect to the U.S. grid at Bellingham, that may raise the costs so significantly that the plant becomes no longer viable. As it is, they'd like to take the shortcut across the Canadian border into Abbotsford, which is just a few kilometres, to save the money. But I think if we all work together, we can stop this plant in its tracks.
EXPANDING POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
IN THE CARIBOO
D. Zirnhelt: My topic this evening is the expansion of post-secondary opportunities in the Cariboo. First of all, I'm pleased that there is an increased amount of funding this year that facilitates a certain number of expansions that we anticipate in the Cariboo. It's part of the $85 million increase to B.C.'s post-secondary budget and part of the overall expansion in B.C. of 5,025 new spaces. Of course, students from the Cariboo North and South will benefit from this general expansion to post-secondary education, as they will travel to many and various institutions.
I want to talk a bit about some of the changes to the program and some of the history, some of the trends in the Cariboo. First of all, at UNBC, which serves the Cariboo, the new northern university, student enrolment populations have gone from 64 students in the first year, '92-93, up to 3,183 in '98-99 and even more this year. The University College of the Cariboo, with its main campus in Kamloops, over the last ten years has gone from about 3,654 students in '89-90 up to 5,294 in '98-99. The University College of the Cariboo will gain 238 student spaces this year, and that's thanks to a $2.72 million-dollar boost in funding. The local campus in Williams Lake, which is a full-service campus, currently has 600 students with 3,000 total registrations and part-time students, including distance education. This college had a briefly declining enrolment -- it's now up to 600, which it was a few years go -- because of a slide situation. We hope that the slide in the old building, which was a major dislocation to the campus operations, will cease. We hope for an announcement this year about the replacement of the campus. I'm hopeful that will happen soon. They still have a few issues with site stability to deal with, but I'm hopeful that will happen.
The 100 Mile campus, which is really called the 100 Mile Training and Education Centre, is a satellite extension of the college in Kamloops. They were very successful in piloting a distance education learning support centre, which has now become part of the core activities, funded out of base budgets, the college budgets. They deal with such things as adult basic education, equipment training and anything else, including testing for any distance education program that can be accessed by technology. That is tremendous. It means, really, that in five years there's been a doubling of the student population in the 100 Mile area, from just under 1,000 to 2,000 registrations. For a very small community, that's almost one registration per capita; of course, it's a large drawing area.
[1830]
I'm pleased that some of the spaces at University College of the Cariboo will be 20 spaces for the nursing program, to train more nurses. That will be at the Williams Lake campus. We're hopeful of a positive announcement about that very soon. In Quesnel the major issue, aside from continued expansion of their programs, is the consolidation into one centre of all the post-secondary education activities. The post-secondary education council there has shown tremendous leadership bringing together the school district, the municipalities and, in particular, the College of New Caledonia and the University of Northern British Columbia in formulating a strategic plan for the future.
I know there will be a meeting of the various parties with the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to advance this agenda, which is primarily a coordination of the capital expansion in that area to try to keep more students in higher education in their communities and therefore provide more effective access for those people who would otherwise have to pay a lot to leave for their higher education.
[ Page 15511 ]
There are a number of initiatives: the continued expansion, the increase in technology programs, some very specific programs related to things like agriculture technology and forestry technology, and of course a full range of business and art courses. All of these programs that are available in the Cariboo are programs that ten years ago were hardly available; now they're available in large numbers. It's my understanding that as the colleges continue to adapt to changing job markets, they can add co-op students in greater numbers and focus on the direct needs, particularly for employment, of the people in the area. The programs are relevant to the people and relevant to the students and where they're at.
Our particular situation in the Cariboo is that we have one of the lowest participation rates. We have to get those rates up. They are coming up; they are increasing. One of the reasons they were that low is because we had a primary industry base and people could get employment without higher education. That's changing. High-tech is pervading the primary resource industries, and people have to have a higher degree of technical training to even get a job in a sawmill these days.
I'm pleased that there has been an increase in the operating budgets, which allows for more students. We're hopeful of some specific capital and program announcements that will meet some very basic needs that we have for higher education in the Cariboo.
J. Wilson: Post-secondary education is a very important part of our education system. It is what I would refer to as a means to an end. It allows young people or people who lose their jobs to go to school and learn the skills that are necessary for them to go out and get a job that will supply them with a good income so that they can raise their families in a fashion that they should be able to.
British Columbia has been for some time dependent on the rest of Canada for a lot of the trained people that we require: nurses, teachers -- this type of employment. We have not kept up, and even today we are still trailing the rest of Canada in our post-graduate studies, in our post-graduate courses, and that's not acceptable. It is really good to see that this year this government has put some effort -- a little bit of effort -- into addressing this problem, but the problem is still there. Lately it's been compounded by the fact that this province is suffering economic setbacks, and people, when they do graduate, are really struggling with whether they should stay in British Columbia or go to other jurisdictions where they can have a better income because of the tax structure. As a result we see a brain drain, and it is costing us dearly.
[1835]
The issue of keeping up with the rest of Canada
The thing that strikes me on this, though, is that each year they accept 24 applicants in that course. Each year they receive roughly 300 applications for students to come to that facility and get that course. The overflow of these applicants is then faced with another choice. They either try and apply in another area, or else they have to apply in Alberta or Saskatchewan to get the accreditation and to work in the field where they want to work, because we do not have the ability in this province to graduate people or to take them in and accept them in these courses when they really feel that they should have that opportunity. When you only accept 1/12 of the people that are applying, it tells me that we are still way behind the rest of the provinces in Canada. We need to bring that up to speed so that we can actually produce the graduates in this province that we're going to require in the next decade. It is a very important aspect of the post-secondary education program.
That goes right across the board. We are going to be looking at roughly three or four thousand nurses in the next few years that we're going to have to hire in this province. The only way that we can ever hope to accomplish that will be if we can graduate enough British Columbians to fill those spaces.
D. Zirnhelt: I think the member for Cariboo North has indicated one area of a program that was in crisis was saved, and I agree that agricultural technology, particularly veterinary technology, provides a wonderful opportunity for employment and training. The college in Kamloops has agreed to support that. I think that's commendable.
Sometimes these things do take awhile. But the picture I painted in my introductory comments was that over the last decade -- and in some cases, over the last five years -- we had a doubling of the registration and student participation. That is taking up some of the need in the area and making a major contribution. We don't get complaints like we used to ten years ago that students couldn't get into college. Now it's much easier for someone to get what they want, provided the institutions can respond.
[1840]
In some cases they respond, and you have more people trained -- oversupply; that has happened in the case of home support -- so they have to cut off the program. That was happening in nursing, until we came up with a shortage. Now the institutions are responding and training. We'll see training both in Prince George and probably in the Williams Lake area, with 20 students each, to pick up some of the slack in the nursing program.
This year we look forward to announcements about the nursing program -- exactly when and how many spaces. That will happen very soon. Capital for rebuilding the Williams Lake campus as a result of the damage created by the slide, and thirdly, the advancement of the coordinated campus for the post-secondary institutions in the Quesnel area
[ Page 15512 ]
institutions together to make the maximum use out of the capital facilities. That's the way of the future, and the people in Quesnel are to be commended for the leadership they're showing in that.
Yes, the economy is in transition. But we're finding that the older students that we have at these campuses are a sign of the times. It's a sign that the jobs in the old economy -- you might say the old industrial economy -- just aren't there. They are going back to school in record numbers. For instance, the average age of students in post-secondary institutions across the province is about 20 years; at the University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops, it's 27 years. So people are much older, and they're going back to school, but they are people coming out of the industrial economy. I'm very glad that we have campuses in every one of our towns in the Cariboo that can serve the people there.
The Speaker: For the fourth private member's statement, the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
TRANSLINK
R. Coleman: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk to the Legislature tonight about TransLink. I'm particularly pleased that the respondee tonight will be a member of the board of directors of TransLink, because I want a message sent to the GVRD and TransLink from my riding, relative to some information that I have.
The GVRD announced through TransLink -- or TransLink announced -- that they were going to consider levying a $75 fee per vehicle to help support transit in the lower mainland. In that announcement, they talked about a poll they had done. That poll said that 60-some percent of people actually supported this vehicle tax.
Well, I can tell this Legislature that in the riding of Fort Langley-Aldergrove such is not the case. In a recent mailout and questionnaire to my constituents, over 650 families responded. They responded relative to whether they had adequate transit and whether they supported a $75 annual fee per vehicle. One person, out of those 650 responses, said they supported a transit tax or levy. The other 649-plus -- and that's out of close to 700 responses, as of today -- made it very clear that they are not adequately served by transit in any way; that they don't use the transit system, because it is not applicable to their daily lives and jobs; and that they would not support such a fee.
Their responses were pretty clear. About 100 of them just came out and said: "Leave the GVRD and go join another regional district, because we're not served by this colossus that comes out of Vancouver." Another group are frustrated because they feel that the people involved in TransLink are out of touch with this particular community of 150-plus square miles at the outer edges of the GVRD that is not represented in any way with by person on the board of TransLink. Yet they want to charge this community $75 per vehicle or more. You can't get there from here in this community on transit, and you cannot imagine the frustration that was brought forward by having even the thought of this type of tax.
I want to give you some examples. The township of Langley built a $13.5 million brand-new pool in Walnut Grove. It is a state-of-the-art facility for that community. In one end of this community are 20,000-plus people living in the community of Aldergrove. Buses stop running in Aldergrove at 7 o'clock at night. If you want to go to the pool or want your children to go to the pool, you will take one hour and 48 minutes to do what is a 17-minute car ride. But the scary part of that one hour and 48 minutes is that 30 minutes of it is sitting in the city of Langley, on a sidewalk at a bus stop, waiting for the next bus to take you either to Aldergrove or to Walnut Grove.
[1845]
Imagine if you would like your children exposed to that to begin with, and then think about the fact that if you're on a one-hour-and-48-minute bus trip, you might need to go to the washroom. There are no public washrooms where the buses change in Langley. There is one washroom; it is locked. It is for the bus drivers, and nobody else can gain access. That's the type of service these communities live with.
Let me give you a better example. The community of Aldergrove is not serviced by a courthouse in Langley or anywhere else. It needs to go to Surrey if it has to go to court. You can imagine a single mother with children who is having custody cases dealt with in Surrey court, who does not have a vehicle and needs to deal with this issue that's stressful enough on her family. If she wants to go to court, she will take two hours and 40 minutes each way. If she has to stay late at court, she cannot make a connection to get back to Aldergrove on a bus to be home that night. She would literally have to rent a motel room to be there. You can't tell me that is service to a community.
One of the big arguments I hear from GVRD and TransLink is: "You should be commuting to work on transit." There is not a piece of my riding where you can access downtown Vancouver in less than two hours by transit.
My community has spoken. Their frustration is that Big Brother in Vancouver thinks he knows what's best for them. Their frustration is that the board of TransLink is not reflective of the needs of the people in these communities. Their frustration is that they are already overburdened by the costs.
They are people that work in the community, and they never go out of the community to get somewhere. It's a community that has the largest industrial park -- Gloucester Industrial Park -- with thousands of jobs and no transit. No transit whatsoever accesses that particular corner of the community. There are parts distribution plants, and there are all kinds of forest companies -- all up there with jobs. Not one person working in one of those places can get to work by bus. They can go to Aldergrove by bus and either hitchhike or walk six miles so that they can get to work.
Yet somebody thinks that they should charge those people on a per-vehicle basis to pay for the boondoggle of billions of dollars worth of transit on the other side of the river and not accessed by this community. It is completely unfair. My community will not support it. They've made it clear to me, as their MLA, to take this message forward to this Legislature and to every council and every member of GVRD relative to the issue. That's exactly what I will do, because it is reflective of my community that they would only be hurt by this and not served by this. People with campers, people with vehicles, people with vehicles they don't use to go and transfer -- they don't commute to the city of Vancouver -- who don't have access, don't want this. They want fairness in the system, and this is unfair to my community.
[ Page 15513 ]
T. Stevenson: I'd like to thank the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove for his forthright comments about TransLink and transportation in this province. I take his remarks very seriously, and as a member of the board of TransLink, you can be assured that I will take his remarks back to the board and to the chair, George Puil.
[1850]
While I understand the hon. member's concerns and those of his constituency, I think it needs to be recognized that TransLink is taking the necessary measures to improve transportation for British Columbia, including communities like Langley. I recognize that some of what I have to say the member won't agree with. Nevertheless, these decisions have been made by the board. But the board needs to be open to listening to what the member and others have to say about the problems they see with some of these decisions.
The proposed vehicle tax or levy to which the member refers is part of a number of cost-sharing initiatives introduced by TransLink to improve transportation in British Columbia. Last year TransLink and the GVRD approved this strategic transportation plan. One component of the plan is a vehicle tax or levy.
Now, many have incorrectly perceived this levy as a transit tax. Transit is only one aspect of TransLink's responsibilities. This levy is part of a comprehensive strategy that will help pay for more than $300 million in repairs, upgrades and major projects -- roads and bridges -- and $1.1 billion to expand public transit over the next six years. The levy will be based on a number of components, including the amount of vehicle use. There also will be a system of instalments similar to insurance to ensure that no one is unfairly burdened with the cost.
Among the other components of the plan are increases in the number of buses and SkyTrain cars, which will result in 1.5 million more hours of transit service per year across the whole region by 2005 -- city buses will be more frequent; new highway approaches -- and will provide express bus service between regional centres. There will be more of the popular B-lines on key routes, and the new mini-bus community shuttles will serve residential areas. In addition, there is funding for a sixth car for the popular West Coast Express, and there will be more SkyTrains.
Yes, car drivers will contribute more than $1 billion in transit improvements. But I ask you to think in terms of the number of cars that a bus can move off of the road. One bus equals about 40 cars.
Transit passengers will also pay for their share of this plan through increased fares on transit. A recent Angus Reid poll shows that 67 percent of greater Vancouver residents support an increase in transit fares to pay for improved transit and transportation. These are cost-sharing initiatives to ensure that everyone has access to safe and affordable transportation in the province. This is not a matter of rural versus urban or rich versus the poor. We all use the roads, bridges and highways.
Greater Vancouver did lobby for a number of years to rethink the transportation financing and governance. As well, the regional district and 20 GVRD municipalities have adopted a 25-year plan for how to handle urban growth until 2021. Throughout the negotiations and public meetings that preceded ratification of the agreement creating the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, a.k.a. TransLink, the province listened to people's concerns. And TransLink does have taxing, of course, and borrowing powers. However, these are constrained by a number of requirements to either undertake broad consultation or to seek GRVD ratification.
All of these measures have been identified as priorities in public forums and opinion polls; we've heard from over 4,000 British Columbians. I acknowledge that the member's riding of Langley was mixed, and there was deep concern given. We recognize that and hope to work with Langley and with the member.
R. Coleman: Frankly, you're right. I don't disagree with most of what you just said, hon. member. The fact of the matter is this: we have an unelected, unaccountable body that wants to go out and tax a bunch of people and won't even allow them so much as a vote on the regional transit system. We have a body that says it did a poll and got 67 percent in the GVRD. I can tell you that if you did that poll in my riding today, 99 percent of the people would say no.
[1855]
What we also don't tell people is the fact that the biggest uploader of roads to TransLink for regional responsibility, so that everybody else in the GVRD can pay -- that's Langley, Surrey, White Rock and Langley City -- is the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver is balancing its own operations on repair and maintenance of roads on the backs of the regions. They have uploaded this to the responsibility of TransLink, and we're supposed to pay by paying a vehicle tax.
The one thing that bothers me is when somebody says it's based on the amount of vehicle usage, when we have no choice. We have no choice but to use our vehicles. We have no way to get from there. We have 150-plus square miles of community with rural roads. We have no choice. For TransLink to think that they can go out there tomorrow and charge those people to pay for the roads in Vancouver for the multibillion-dollar SkyTrain they are never going to use, and say: "Oh, we'll give you another bus a day, and that should satisfy the fact that we're going to suck all this money out of your community
I can tell the hon. member to take it back to TransLink that you're looking at a real fight out in the valley. We do not find this to be acceptable. We only find it to be autocratic, and we only find it to be extremely frustrating. We pay the gas tax; we pay the fuel tax. We pay the other taxes already, and we have no other choices. They can't even get to the major employers in the community by any form of transit. They have to drive.
TransLink wants to penalize these people for having to drive their car somewhere to work. It's totally unfair; it's totally unacceptable. The message from my community is really clear: you'd better rethink this thing. Maybe you should start having
The Speaker: I want to thank all the members for their private members' statements.
[ Page 15514 ]
Hon. J. Kwan: I note the time, and I move that the House do now adjourn.
Hon. J. Kwan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:53 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
On vote 19: ministry operations, $828,499,000.
Hon. A. Petter: I am very pleased to be able to present the annual estimates for the Ministry of Attorney General. I thought I would start with a few prefatory remarks, just to share with members of the committee some thoughts and perspectives from this new seat for me and to hopefully frame some of the issues for the ensuing discussion and debate.
In recent years this ministry has been working very hard to reform B.C.'s justice system to better reflect the needs and expectations of British Columbians. We have sought to find ways to get tougher on serious crime so that people could feel safe in their homes, in their schools and in their communities. At the same time we have sought alternative methods of dealing with less serious offences to reduce court pressures and to promote rehabilitation. It's that balance of trying to be tough on serious crime, while at the same time looking for alternatives and rehabilitation for those who have not yet become serious criminals, that has characterized many of the measures that have been made by my predecessor. I think they have shown tremendous progress in recent years.
In the last four years the ministry has developed and implemented many valuable and effective programs. The changes and advancements are too numerous to enumerate, but I would like to highlight a few of them as an example of the work that has been accomplished to date and to show what further steps I personally would like to take to move this work forward in the coming year.
Sexual exploitation of children and youth is devastating to children, their families and the community at large. British Columbia has led the nation in convincing Ottawa to change the Criminal Code to make it easier to arrest and prosecute adults who buy sex from children and youth. I will continue to push for further changes to the Criminal Code to ensure that the age of consent is increased from 14 to 16, an initiative that my predecessor took up with the federal government and which I hope we can see through to conclusion.
[1455]
In 1997 the province created an unsolved homicide unit made up of members from the RCMP and the Vancouver police department. Its purpose was to ensure the effective coordination of investigations into unsolved homicides dating back up to 35 years. Since its inception this unit has shown considerable success. It's been involved in some 72 investigations, and as a consequence 31 persons have been charged in 25 cases. The successful operation of the unit highlights the ability of provincial law enforcement agencies to achieve results through cooperation. I support, and I intend to promote, the expansion of other integrated operations involving the RCMP and municipal departments in using both staff and technology.
Organized crime, as we unfortunately are increasingly aware, has become more sophisticated and pervasive around the world. Sadly, British Columbia is not immune to its devastating effects. To combat organized crime, my predecessor last year set up the Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia. The agency is police-based and enforcement-focused, with provincewide authority to fight organized crime. This year I was able to gain support for an increase in the Organized Crime Agency's funding from the province by some $3.8 million to ensure its full and effective operation.
A good example of our work with communities in the field of restorative justice has been the provision of startup funding for community accountability programs. Communities tell us that such programs provide quick, effective and satisfactory resolution of less serious offences. Low-risk offenders are held accountable for their actions, victims are heard and supported, and the community balance is restored. Since February of 1998, 53 communities have been approved for startup funding. It's my hope to continue to expand this initiative in the coming year.
These are just a few of the examples of the progress that has been made in recent years under the leadership of my predecessor, the now Premier. I am certainly looking forward to building on this work and tackling the challenges of the future. My focus will be to continue the important justice initiatives underway, while at the same time focusing particular attention on attacking the root causes of crime in our communities.
It's important to respond swiftly to criminal activity when it happens, but that alone is not enough. Government must work with communities to eradicate the root causes of criminal activity, so that we can build safe, healthy communities. This obviously is a mission that is not confined to any one ministry or indeed any one level of government or government alone. But nonetheless, this ministry has an important role to play.
I have set a number of goals for this fiscal year. I have asked my ministry to reach out to communities across the province in three important ways: first, by addressing the problem of youth crime and violence; second, by empowering communities to make decisions that will promote safe homes and communities; third, by deploying technology where we can to find efficiencies, enhance service delivery in the justice system and ensure that system is more responsive to community values.
First and foremost, we will focus on youth crime, violence and victimization. We want to stop crime in our homes, in our schools and in our communities before it starts. The distressing youth stories about youth violence of the last few years -- at Columbine, in Littleton, Taber, Ottawa and nearer home, youth gangs and bullying in schools that have led to tragic
[ Page 15515 ]
results -- make it clear that we need to address youth violence, because regrettably, youth violence is growing. The concerns regarding it are more urgent.
Preventing youth crime, violence and victimizations takes a concerted effort by governments at all levels, schools, police, community members and indeed youth themselves. I am committed to working with communities to seek new ways to prevent youth crime and violence. My ministry will continue to offer and promote programs that build positive relations among police, schools and youth, and will look for ways to make these programs more effective and accessible.
Youth also have an important role in preventing youth crime. Their voices must be heard and their views considered in any initiative or program if it is to be effective. My ministry will continue to promote youth leadership in programs and resource development and will include youth in the planning, implementation and review of community programs and initiatives.
My ministry will continue to provide operational and funding support to communities and youth partners through such youth projects as Nights Alive; 841-KOZ; TROO; Safe Schools, Safe Communities and many others. These are exciting new programs. I wish I had time to talk about them, and perhaps we will during the debate. They're new programs; they've been initiated in the last few years. Many of them involve youth directly taking a leadership role in terms of creating a culture that can start to work against violence and promote safer communities. I think that they are examples of the kinds of things we can continue to do. They point the way for new initiatives as well. With the commitment and involvement of all community partners, these programs can and will continue to help even more communities to become safe places for youth to grow and prosper.
[1500]
The second way I've asked my ministry to reach out to communities across the province is by encouraging and supporting community-based planning and programs that build effective crime prevention strategies. I hope that we can reach out to communities and work with them to identify crime and safety challenges, to assess the effectiveness of services that are currently available and to identify gaps in programs and services. Each community has its own particular personality, its own issues, its own problems and its own solutions. I believe that communities know best. Communities should be given a greater role in deciding how programs can be improved and which programs work for them. By including communities in this way, not only will the choices be more effective, but the community will be more fully committed to making the solutions work. Local commitment and leadership are essential to make crime prevention a reality.
In recent years this ministry has developed and implemented many effective programs in communities around the province. But some communities are still not fully aware of the many options that are now open to assist them in dealing with their specific local crime and safety issues. My ministry will be taking steps to ensure that every community in the province knows of the programs that are available -- how they work -- and will provide support to those communities in making decisions about what will work best for them.
A third objective that I've set for the coming year is to determine how we can best use the tools that are available to us through new technologies to address such issues as public safety, crime prevention and enforcement issues, and to provide a more efficient and effective service in the justice system. The justice system in British Columbia, as in other jurisdictions, is experiencing mounting pressures, in part due to increasing numbers of criminal, civil and family cases, public concern about crime and safety issues and our own efforts to make the justice system more accountable to those it serves. There are increased pressures.
But there are also, through technology, some exciting opportunities for government and this ministry in particular to improve and enhance service delivery through administrative efficiencies and through providing smoother access to programs in courts. It can also permit the ministry and public to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of programs quickly and realistically, based on measurable outcomes -- something that can assist us in improving programs throughout the entire delivery system provided by this ministry and other ministries of government.
To this end, my ministry will expand the use of the many technologies and initiatives for enhancing service delivery that have been developed over the past four years. Again, I can't possible point to them all, but let me mention a few. The ministry is moving forward with an integrated provincial database linking police, Crown prosecutors, the courts and, eventually, those managing custody and probation services across the province. This system will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of specific aspects of the justice process, such as trial scheduling and handling of prisoners.
The ministry is also developing an automatic case-tracking system that features a provincewide database and the automation of all criminal court forms, from creation to electronic distribution. This system can provide better offender management information and reduce the cost of maintaining separate systems in multiple locations.
Video conferencing is already being used in several court locations throughout the province for a number of different purposes and to good effect. For example, in a recent case a witness in a wheelchair was able to testify without having to make a long trip to attend court in another city. The court saved the travel expense, and more importantly, the witness did not have to make the difficult trip. In another case, a child witness was able to testify by using video conferencing technology, thereby eliminating the necessity of being present in the courtroom with an alleged abuser.
Video conferencing also cuts transportation costs and provides greater public safety by reducing the number of accused being transported to and from courthouses for remand, something that is very simple but can have huge benefits both in time consumed and also the threat to public safety from the transportation of remand prisoners -- something that is not necessary where video conferencing facilities can provide access for the courts to such prisoners without requiring that transportation.
These are just a few of the many initiatives that are underway to make better use of available technology. In the coming months I will be announcing further system enhancements and initiatives to make the justice system more efficient and effective.
[1505]
Another focus of this ministry over the next year will be a greater emphasis and evaluation of how community-funded administrative programs are working. The programs we fund
[ Page 15516 ]
will be evaluated, and the evaluations will be made public. Evaluations will be carried out in consultation with stakeholders and communities. The results will provide valuable information about the effectiveness of our programs and initiatives and give us direction for future initiatives. Evaluation of ministries' work is sometimes a painful process, but it's an integral part of ensuring we make the best use of resources at the community and ministry level.
The performance plan that has been tabled in the House with respect to this ministry is just a first step in setting goals and committing to measure achievement of outcomes. I hope we can look to that performance plan to frame at least some of the issues that we discuss in the course of these estimates, because that indeed is one of the critical functions of that plan -- for us to debate the goals, for us to talk about the means for achieving those goals and to provide some framework for that discussion.
We, like other ministries, have only begun this significant exercise in public accountability, so we know that our goals and measures will change with experience and feedback. That, of course, is precisely what they're intended to do, and we welcome it, knowing that as a consequence we can become more effective and accountable because of it.
I think this ministry has good reason to be proud of its accomplishments and the accomplishments of the justice system over the past four years. We have led the nation in our efforts to protect youth from sexual exploitation and violence. We are in the vanguard in developing systems to make the justice system more efficient and effective. We've implemented important and innovative programs to combat crime in our communities and to protect our youth.
Over the past four years, this ministry has taken a tough stand against crime. The ministry's programs and initiatives are making a difference. Obviously this does not mean that the system is without its problems. Clearly the pressures are great. The challenges are many and the controversies very frequent, as I have discovered in a very short compass of time. But that should not make us shy away from the challenge. It should make us redouble our efforts, and certainly, speaking personally, that's what I intend to do.
Moreover, I hope that we can go further. I hope that in the coming year we can focus even more on working with communities to attack the causes of crime and to find creative solutions that empower communities to protect youth, seniors and other vulnerable members of society. The goal, quite simply, for this ministry -- the goal for myself -- is for all British Columbians to be able to live safely in their homes and their schools and in their communities. I suspect it's a goal that will never be fully achieved, but it's a goal that I think is worth pursuing, one that we can work together on across the aisle in this House, and a goal that is incredibly worthwhile.
The Chair: Before I recognize another member, could I get the Attorney General to introduce his staff that accompany him today?
Hon. A. Petter: It's like a skill-testing question. I would have done that later, but I'm happy to do it now. Seated next to me is Gillian Wallace, who is the Deputy Attorney General. Behind me is Thea Vakil, who is the assistant deputy minister with respect to
A Voice: Corporate services.
Hon. A. Petter:
G. Plant: I, as usual, hon. Chair, am assisted by the regular complement of staff available to opposition in the course of estimates debates.
The first thing I want to do -- and I do it sincerely -- is express my appreciation to the minister's staff not just over the course of the last few weeks since we've been getting ready for this but also over the course of the last year. I consider that I'm pretty fortunate in terms of being able to get answers to questions that need to be asked, and I appreciate the work done by staff to help me get the information I need.
I listened with interest to the Attorney General's opening comments, because of course it marks an opportunity for him to chart a new course in his new position. As I listened to his expression of a new vision -- not a radically new vision but a vision that I think he would say bears some of his own personal imprint -- I was reminded of the challenge that any provincial Attorney General faces. The Attorney General is of course the chief law officer of the Crown and is the minister responsible for close to a billion dollars of public expenditure.
Yet if you were to examine the position of the provincial Attorney General in terms of his or her ability to influence the justice system and public policy, it might be an examination that would frustrate most people. After all, the judiciary, whose bills are paid by the ministry, are independent. The police forces of British Columbia -- much of whose costs are in fact funded by the Ministry of Attorney General -- consider themselves to be fiercely independent of the political system, and they are not likely to take the direction of the Attorney General, at least on operational matters.
[1510]
Then there is Crown counsel, who are statutorily responsible for making charging decisions in prosecutions. Quite rightly, they consider that when they exercise that power, they are doing so in a way which is at least quasi-independent from the political system. And the list goes on. Of course the criminal justice system, which the Attorney General is responsible for administering, is determined by the content of criminal law, which the Attorney General does not make but is in fact made in Ottawa. Although the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Crown, in a dozen municipalities the police forces are controlled by municipal police boards which are not directly under the influence of the Attorney General, by a long shot. Sometimes I've asked myself: just what is it that the Attorney General can do? It's an interesting question.
The other thing, of course, that complicates the role of an Attorney General who is at least willing to acknowledge that crime and public safety are a critically important part of his mandate -- as the Attorney General here has just done -- is recognizing that the root causes of crime probably lie beyond his ministerial responsibility, because they have their origins in issues of societal health which are not directly under his purview. In many cases, the causes and the incidence of crime and of deviant behaviour are functions of very large socioeconomic forces, including things as difficult to control as the demographic profile of a population. As the population has greater or lesser amounts of 18-year-old men, it seems there is an impact on the incidence of criminal behaviour.
[ Page 15517 ]
Within all of those forces over which the Attorney General really has very little control, it is important nonetheless to recognize that the kind of programs the Attorney General is talking about are an attempt to respond to the mandate that does exist. I do hope we get a chance to talk about a few of those programs over the course of the debate to follow.
The second thing I want to say, though, is that it seems to increasingly be a challenge for all of us as public officials, when talking about the justice system, to avoid the distraction created by particular incidents. There are clearly particular incidents that arise -- in fact, one or two may have arisen in the last week -- where, if we are scrupulous in our attention to their implications, we will find that there may well be systemic issues, issues of public policy, that arise and are important to talk about.
The way that we live in society nowadays is that the media scrutiny that is given to crime and public safety makes it very difficult for every public official, unelected and elected, to keep an eye on the main trend, on the main work of the system. And it's all the more important, I think to say what needs to be said from time to time, which is that we are well served by and large, as a provincial population, by our justice system. There are things that can and should and must be done to improve it, but we are a remarkably safe, secure and civil society. I don't have any hesitation in admitting that from time to time.
I was struck over the last year
[1515]
The graph points out that in terms of the actual incidence of the exposure to criminal activity -- I guess the victimization or someone who is a victim of crime -- the people in our society who are most at risk of being victims of crime are in the youngest age bracket, which is the subject of this graph. I think it was age 14 to 25. As you follow the line along into older and older groups, the actual incidence of crime drops. It drops continuously until you reach the end of the graph, which is the oldest cohort in the population, where you find that the actual incidence of victimization by crime is at its lowest.
Yet if you cross-chart against the perception of risk, it is exactly the opposite. Young people who are in fact most at risk of being victims of crime feel least at risk. Old people, on the other hand, who are in fact least at risk feel most at risk. If that isn't a public policy problem to navigate out of, I don't know what is. It isn't made any better by the barrage of reports of criminal behaviour, which it seems we have now become subject to on the nightly news.
I want to say a third thing. The Attorney talked about the importance of communities, and I think he said something that is important. It was that communities are different and that what works for and within communities will differ from community to community.
I don't know that there is any better example of that -- at least, that occurs to me right now -- than the experience of rolling out the community accountability program, which the ministry has been doing for the last two or three years, and trying to encourage communities to develop restorative justice programs in their communities by giving a little bit of seed money and then, hopefully, some encouragement to get these programs up and running. I remember that when the announcement of this funding was first made, I expressed the concern that no one ought to be under the illusion that there was any quick fix here -- that you couldn't sort of mail out 250 community accountability programs to 250 communities across British Columbia and expect that they would all be up and running in short order.
But it is my experience, having wandered around B.C. a lot over the last two or three years, that community after community is in fact taking up this invitation and getting going with their own programs. I will say this: the programs that seem to me to be working the best are those that are doing so with the least amount of help from the government -- that is, the least amount of money and the least amount of other forms of help. The example which occurs to me is the Comox Valley community justice centre, which I think did get its $5,000 grant but really has had almost no public money since then. I am very impressed with the work that those people are doing in that community -- for whatever the fact that I'm impressed matters. It just seems to me that community is in fact where this is going to happen.
There are other things the Attorney General talked about that I hope we will return to in the course of the debate. But I did want to end these remarks by talking about one other theme, and that is the theme of evaluation. I think it is a great public policy challenge to figure out what the questions are that we should be asking of the justice system in order to get answers that tell us that the justice system is in some way getting better. The time-honoured questions are questions like: are there more people in this program this year than last year? Are we spending more money on this program this year than last year? Traditional input-output measurement. I recognize the difficulty of moving beyond those time-honoured traditions of evaluation, but it seems to me critical that we do so. I'm not yet sure that we know what the questions are that we should be asking. But we have to start thinking about that, and maybe we'll have a moment or two to pursue that during the course of this debate.
[1520]
In this context I am reminded, however, of the fact that the United States Congress recently did a study. I haven't gone back to get the details, but in broad outline, the Congress wanted to examine the effectiveness of something like $30 billion a year that the U.S. government spends to fund community justice prevention-related initiatives. And $30 billion is a lot of money. There's a very exhaustive multivolume study that resulted from this. The one theme that recurs on almost every page of the overview is that Congress needs to spend more money evaluating the success of its programs.
In fact, I think that of the $30 billion, the recommendation was that Congress needed to spend 10 percent -- one dollar in ten -- determining whether or not the other $9 was in fact achieving some kind of result other than simply keeping people busy delivering programs. I'm not sure that we're ready yet to determine whether that's the ratio that exists within this ministry or even whether it is the ratio that should
[ Page 15518 ]
exist. But it does seem to me a useful indicator of both the importance of the issue of evaluation and, frankly, how much work it's going to be when we finally get around to figuring out, in a really detailed way, how that ought to be done.
When I look at the state of the ministry overall, I look at what the ministry does in relation to the objectives of the government, broadly speaking -- the government under new leadership. When I look at the performance plan for the Ministry of Attorney General for the year 2000-2001, I then go back to the issue of annual reports -- one of my favourite issues. It never seems to actually get better. I have the annual report for the Ministry of Attorney General for 1996-97; I also have a draft of the annual report for 1997-98, as a starting point to all of this. I'm not certain whether the minister has in fact tabled in the House the '97-98 annual report or whether it exists only in draft.
Hon. A. Petter: This must be the $100 question before we start moving up.
I understand that '97-98 was tabled in the House by my predecessor, but we're getting ready to table the '98-99 annual report. If
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I'll check on that, because
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, we have performance plans now, which are helpful.
G. Plant: That's helpful. Getting ready to table the '98-99 report is, I suppose, also at least measurable progress in the right direction. The question, though, is whether it's good enough. I've been doing this for four or five years now, and the problem is that I've almost come to accept that annual reports from this ministry are
There are a bunch of windows that I can look through to see this problem. The first is that I'm not actually talking about something that the Ministry of Attorney General does as a voluntary act. I'm not talking about holding the ministry to account for the fact that I think they should file an annual report. I'm actually talking about whatever section it is in the Attorney General Act that requires, by law, the minister to file an annual report. We could have a lawyers' argument about the fact that there's no time line attached to that provision. That presumably means that the minister could file the report four or five years after the year in question, but I'm not sure that anyone would credibly want to say that that was the purpose of the section.
[1525]
When I look at it through the window of what the government is seeking to do legislatively, in terms of -- I think it's Bill 2 -- the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, that's a bill that's rife with obligations to file reports. That's obviously still a bill; it's not the law. But the question, I guess, is
Hon. A. Petter: I certainly don't want the member to have to bring a writ of mandamus in order to get an annual report.
G. Plant: I actually have that in my notes.
A Voice: He stole your line.
Hon. A. Petter: Maybe I anticipated it. Clearly the ministry is trying to catch up, which is why we are hopefully on the brink of being able to table -- I am told -- the '98-99 annual report. And I appreciate the member's point.
Having said that, there has been a lot of effort and energy, at the same time as we are trying to catch up with the annual reports, put into providing performance plans. The combination of having a performance plan that looks forward with an attempt to articulate objectives and some measurable indicators of how and when those objectives are being achieved is -- I think the member would agree -- another part of the accountability picture.
So I invite the member to put together the fact that we now have a new instrument, a performance plan, which can help to increase accountability around this debate and frame this debate, and that the annual reports, as even the member seems to suggest, are now accelerating, albeit not quickly enough. They haven't reached the starting line quite yet, but they're getting closer to it. I will certainly undertake to make my best effort to get the annual reports up to date as much as can be.
I don't know the specific answers as to why it takes long. I assume that ministry staff diligently try to produce a substantive report. I've seen some reports -- not of this government, of course -- that meet the requirement of form but really wouldn't satisfy the member much in terms of substance. I wouldn't like to satisfy the legal requirement by coming up with a document that met the form but not the substance. I will try to encourage the ministry to accelerate the process, but not at the price of maintaining a substantive product.
G. Plant: The performance plan, of course, is a statement of objectives and a list of aspirations for achievement that presumably we're going to get when we're going to get to look at and also examine as semi-annual reports are filed. It is not by any means an opportunity to measure the achievements -- or lack of them -- of the government in delivering on whatever promises or programs it had underway two or three years ago. It certainly is part of the picture; I don't doubt that.
We're very close to a moment of supreme irony -- or maybe I've actually identified why it is that Bill 2 hasn't been called for debate. When Bill 2 becomes law, the minister will in fact be required to file by June 30 -- which is just a little bit more than a month and a half away -- the annual report for the year that ended just a couple of months ago. So he has a lot
[ Page 15519 ]
of annual report writing to do. If the report for 1998-99 exists in draft, is it in a condition fit for at least some form of partial disclosure?
[1530]
Hon. A. Petter: I had to check first to see if it's fit for disclosure to me. Apparently it is, and since I'm an open guy, if it can be disclosed to me, it can certainly be disclosed to the member opposite. So I'd be very happy to share the report with the member in its current draft form, without prejudice to how it may be transformed -- with his input, perhaps -- into an even better form for final distribution. But I'd be happy to provide it to him, in whatever form it is.
G. Plant: I appreciate that good offer. I will of course completely resist any opportunity to actually help make it better -- I'm only kidding.
I do find myself driven to try to explain to myself why this is important. I think that is just the product of some kind of culture of non-accountability that has managed, after four years, to pervade its way into me. I almost feel embarrassed standing up and wondering why it is that the Attorney General responsible for enforcing the laws of British Columbia is two years behind in reporting on the work that he apparently does in discharging that obligation.
In 1996-97, for example, the annual report in the court services branch talked about how the branch administers B.C.'s 102 Provincial Courts, 42 Supreme Courts and four Appeal Courts. Then in 1997-98 -- the last report I do have -- the court services branch administers 94 Provincial Courts, 41 Supreme Courts and five Appeal Courts. Somewhere between '96-97 and '97-98, we lost eight Provincial Courts and one Supreme Court. There's nothing actually in either of these reports that talks in any principled way or detailed way about that fairly important aspect of life in the legal system in British Columbia. I think it began in November of '96 and continued in February of '97, when the province collectively shut down something like 14 courthouses. Yet by the time we get this '97-98 report, of course, it is three years out of date. I'm sure there's an answer to the questions: how many Provincial Courts are there today, how many Supreme Courts are there today, and how many appeal courts are there today?
But in terms of tracking those basic aspects of what it is that the ministry is doing, there are really two challenges, I suppose. Well, maybe it's just one challenge. We're so far behind that the questions no longer seem relevant, because they seem to have become outdated. Yet it is surely important to know how many Provincial Courts there are.
I'm not for a moment, by the way, suggesting that I couldn't get the answer to that question. The annual report, though, is not a document for me, of course; it's a document for the citizens of British Columbia, who might not have Mr. Scigliano's telephone number.
Perhaps just to see where we are in terms of the status of courthouses in British Columbia, is the minister able to update us on how many Provincial Courts and Supreme Courts there are in B.C. today?
Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I can't imagine that anyone in the province doesn't have Mr. Scigliano's phone number. [Laughter.] If that's the case, we'll find a way to let them know.
Having said that, I want to say that I think the member's concern about annual reports is a valid concern. I don't think he should be the slightest bit embarrassed about that concern. In fact, as I look at the performance plan that has been tabled on my behalf in the House and that guides us, goal No. 10 is to improve the efficiency of all ministry operations. Perhaps we should make a note that one measure of that -- perhaps not the most significant measure, but a significant measure -- is to try to get the annual reports out on a more timely basis. If they don't have meaning, we should dispense with them; if they do have meaning, we should try to get them out on a more timely basis. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I invite the member to feel no embarrassment whatsoever. I think that's a legitimate point, and I'll do my best to try to deliver on it. Then it'll be me who's embarrassed, if in the future we don't at least make some headway in that regard. That's the purpose of the performance plan. That goal, I think, should be directed to that.
In respect of the specific question on courthouses, I have staff here looking for the specific answer. I don't have it to hand, but if the member could allow me to, I will get that information for him.
[1535]
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Yeah.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's response. There is one question that arises. There's more than one, but there's one that I am going to leave with the minister that arises from my review of the '97-98 annual report.
On page 5 of that report there is a discussion of justice reform consultation that was underway between September 1997 and March 1998. I think that the consultation process here may have resulted in a justice reform document. I'm not sure if I'm a year forward or backward, which I guess is another part of the problem here.
It appears from page 5 that as part of the tour in this consultation process, the ministry distributed an information package and an evaluation form for gathering information on public priorities for the justice system. The page in the report reports the results taken from the evaluation form. I'm wondering whether those results were collected and compiled in the form of some sort of report that exists somewhere that could be disclosed as a bit of an indicator of what the public was saying about the justice system back in the autumn and winter of '97-98. If the minister was to take that one on notice, as it were, I'll certainly await the answer.
Hon. A. Petter: I should say now -- I guess it's obvious -- that as we move through these debates, the member will have to bear with me as I get up to speed on some of these issues, particularly ones that predated my very recent involvement with the ministry.
With respect, if in fact the justice reform consultation that the member's referring to is the one that I believe it to be, staff inform me that in fact there is some information in a summary form, perhaps, that could be shared as to what the outcome of that consultation was. Certainly I will ask staff to follow up and see if we can provide the member with whatever form it is -- a summary or some indication of the outcome of that consultation -- for his benefit.
G. Plant: I look forward to that.
[ Page 15520 ]
I want to move on to the subject of the performance plan, but at this stage with some fairly general questions. We may return to the performance plan with some detailed questions later. I should perhaps make my own confession. I'm not sure I could pass a test right now on the detailed contents of the document. What I want to do, though, is ask some general questions which really are driven, in part, by the general comments I made about the challenge of assessing performance in relation to justice system programs. On an ongoing basis, does the ministry conduct a comparative assessment or analysis of how B.C. compares with other provinces in the delivery of justice system or service programs?
Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the ministry does look at its -- and at the province's -- comparative rating on a number of indicators. It's not done systematically, in the sense that it's not done in each and every case to measure performance. But clearly it's done in areas to measure everything, from statistical information, crime rates and the like, but also in terms of trying to get some sense of our position in terms of programs and the like with other provinces. So it wouldn't be correct to say that it's done in each and every element of evaluation, but it is done fairly regularly to deal with particular issues that such comparison can help in evaluating or in advancing the province's interest in respect of federal-provincial discussions or in terms of trying to explain our position to citizens or to the opposition or the press -- whoever it may be -- in addition, of course, to evaluating our own progress. So it is a very common form of comparison that's used, but I don't want to suggest that it's used in each and every instance.
[1540]
G. Plant: I think it might be difficult to apply that kind of rigour uniformly to every single program. Among other things, I suppose the challenge is comparing apples to oranges.
I wonder if the minister, though, in general terms, could now respond to the comments I made about input-output performance criteria and whether he thinks that, taken as a whole, this performance plan is in fact going to make some progress beyond simply identifying that there are more people on a particular program or that there's more money being spent in a particular program -- into measurements that actually try to capture effectiveness, efficiency and outcomes.
In that context, I might also ask the minister for his response to my sense that the challenge here is to avoid moving from an input-output analysis into an equally appealing -- but I think only superficially so -- analysis, which is the public opinion survey form of measuring satisfaction. The question: is community policing working in British Columbia? I don't know. Let's ask the people of British Columbia if they think community policing is working. It seems to me that is perhaps some progress beyond input-output analysis, but not very much. So I look forward to the minister's general comments about the question of performance evaluation for programs in his ministry.
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member providing the opportunity to address the performance plan in a fairly general way. I guess the answer is that I do believe that a performance plan of this kind -- and this particular performance plan -- is an extremely useful tool, not because in and of itself it's a perfect plan -- far from it. It's a first cut of a performance plan. It draws our attention to asking the questions, as the member said at the very outset -- and I really appreciated his opening remarks on the four areas he dealt with; I counted four -- in his comments about some of the dilemmas one has in terms of a variety of issues. One of the ones he referenced was: "How do you even know you are asking the right question?"
The performance plan challenges us to address that question. Are we asking the right question? Then we can determine whether or not we can get the answer right as well. There have been many who have proselytized about performance plans much more effectively than I could, including the previous auditor general and also Fred Gingell, who was, when he was an MLA in this House, a strong advocate of using performance plans as a mechanism for accountability and, I hope, a mechanism for collaboration on trying to define or disagreeing about what it is you're trying to do.
[1545]
I forgot who it was, but someone once said: "The most common mistake in human nature is forgetting what it is you're trying to do." I think that in this House, we sometimes forget what we're trying to do. Sometimes we do worry a lot about public opinion. We do worry about whether the input is resulting in an output, without actually asking ourselves: "Is this output the output we desired in the first place?"
I think a performance plan is useful, because it forces us to say: "What do we really want to get out of the ministry and out of the justice system, and what is our capacity to influence that? And within that, what can we then do to try to achieve those results and to maximize that capacity?" I think, from that point of view, it's extremely useful.
I also agree with what I think is implicit in the member's suggestion -- that by doing that, it takes us away from a simple input-output measure. We're putting so many dollars on the table, and it's resulting in so many spaces. It forces you to say: "Are those spaces what you really want, and are those spaces more important than these spaces over here? Which is the more important goal?"
Having said that, if you look at the plan, clearly there is a count of outputs and inputs. That is part of the larger evaluation. If you go through the plan, you see performance measures outputs and performance measures outcomes. So input-output analysis is part of the exercise; it's just not the entire exercise.
Similarly, public opinion surveys may well be a valuable tool for measuring certain things, but not all things. The member, again, in his opening comments drew our attention very persuasively to the fact that sometimes the public perception is not only different than the statistical reality, if statistics are real -- what the reality is as indicated by the statistics -- but that sometimes it is actually counter. So a group in society that feels least safe may in fact be statistically most safe.
Is that important? Yes, it's important both to know that they feel least safe and to know that in fact they are most safe. If they're feeling least safe, that's an issue of public concern. It's an issue of concern to me. Part of the role of the mandate of this ministry and of government is to make people, as much as possible, feel that they're safe within their communities -- whether that is based in a statistical reality or not. Therefore I think public opinion surveys around people's perceptions of the justice system, around programs and around safety are important, but they're not the whole story.
[ Page 15521 ]
That's why I think this performance plan is useful. It takes these various elements -- input-output, public opinion, issues of relative importance -- and it challenges us to talk about those and not to get distracted by the day-to-day distractions or any one element but to look at it in a more -- I hesitate to say it, but I will -- holistic way.
G. Plant: I think it's worth making the fairly general observation at this point that the performance measure outputs and outcomes that are contained within this performance plan include a variety of measurements. There is some input-output measurement; there is some survey measurement. There are also some other outcomes that I think even Fred Gingell would acknowledge were about what the exercise was hoping to get to. It's certainly not going to be my intention to contend that the very first performance plan produced by the Ministry of Attorney General should be perfect. I accept the minister's suggestion that it's the beginning of a process that will hopefully result in not just an improvement in the performance of the ministry but also an improvement in the performance plans of the ministry, in terms of the kinds of things that are looked for as outcomes.
[1550]
I think it is implicit in the minister's comments that a variety of measurements are legitimate and that, where appropriate and possible, we should move to outcomes that do attempt to measure results in terms of what we actually tried to achieve when the program under scrutiny was established. I think that really is what I was hoping to hear from the minister. We may get a chance, over the course of the estimates, to identify one or two places where some of the outcomes could be redefined. That might be something that will happen on the first occasion on which the plan is reviewed.
That leads me to the next general question, which is: what is the process that the ministry has in place to monitor its achievement of the plan objectives? How is it going to do the work it has to do to figure out whether it's meeting its performance plan objectives?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't want to disappoint the member by having answered the previous question at too high a level of abstraction. I mean to say -- to come down one level -- that I fully agree with what he is saying. What this plan does -- in a more systematic way, hopefully, than we have previously done -- is look at very specific types of program initiatives and measure the extent to which the objectives of those programs are or are not being met and how they might be improved. Certainly that is, at the next level down, exactly what it's designed to do.
In terms of monitoring and updating, the performance plan is a dynamic document. The process around it is designed to be dynamic. The ministry will be doing updates to advise me as minister -- and I hope to be able to share those from time to time -- on how we are performing against the measures that have been set and to, by doing that, be more systematic in the way that I and we go about the process of improving programs and being accountable for those programs, whether they are improved or not.
This is not just a performance plan that we can walk away from. This is a performance plan that now the ministry is committed to working on, providing regular updates. I'm told the intention is to try to provide updates at least bi- annually if possible -- that is, twice a year. Biannual has a double meaning. That should then assist in the ongoing improvement of these programs.
G. Plant: Just as a practical matter, my understanding is that the plan is posted on the Internet so that it's accessible publicly and that the semi-annual review will also be made public in the same way.
Hon. A. Petter: That's certainly the intention, hon. Chair. Yes.
G. Plant: Has there been a reallocation or reorganization of ministry staff in order to undertake the ongoing review? Or is
Hon. A. Petter: It would have been so satisfying to say that we had taken all the resources out of the annual-report-writing section of the ministry, but that turns out not to be the case.
The answer is no, there has not been a reorganization. The performance plan is designed in a way that each branch and each program is, in a sense, responsible for maintaining reporting on its component of the plan, and therefore that information will be fed in and collected through the existing organizational structure of the ministry. There's not a reorganization required as a result of the plan or indeed to deliver on the plan.
[1555]
G. Plant: What will be the coordinating agency within the ministry for collecting all the reports and the analyses that will be generated?
Hon. A. Petter: It will be within the responsibility of the policy, planning and legislation component of the ministry. I'm told that within that component of the ministry, there are already nine FTEs allocated specifically to evaluation of programs. So there is capacity within that component of the ministry to do the coordination and ensure that the appropriate evaluation is provided.
G. Plant: In terms of generating the information, though, I suppose it would not be unreasonable to say that the various programs and departments -- the people who actually deliver the service -- will just have this reporting function added to their existing workload, as opposed to carving out specific functions inside different branches. I guess what I'm trying to get a handle on is the extent to which movement to a performance plan-based approach to delivering programs is going to achieve structural change inside the ministry or is going to be kind of an add-on of one more job that the ministry has for itself. I'm not sure if there's a right answer to that question. I'm interested in knowing what the minister's approach will be.
Hon. A. Petter: It's the latter, in the sense that what's contemplated here is that the component of the ministry that is responsible for a program will now take on the responsibility of providing the updated information necessary to evaluate and update the performance plan. I think that makes sense, because you want the people who are responsible for
[ Page 15522 ]
implementing the program to be thinking about these very issues and to be doing self-evaluation as they are providing the evaluation through to me and, through me, to others.
Now, if the evaluation shows a need for reorganization, then, yes, there would be reorganization. There is not a need to reorganize the ministry or to create separate components for the performance plan. That will be taken on as a responsibility by those who are charged with responsibility for their programs that are being evaluated within the plan. However, should the evaluation process disclose that the current organizational structure is somehow deficient or not assisting in the delivery of performance plan targets, then one would see a reorganization. I just want to clarify those two elements.
G. Plant: That's helpful. It was helpful to me; I'm sure it was helpful to you, hon. Chair.
The next general area I want to try and get some understanding of in terms of performance plans is perhaps best explained or illustrated in the following way. The minister stood up at the beginning of the debate and expressed some of his policy vision for the ministry which he has become charged with. I think he was appointed to his current position pretty close to the end of the last fiscal year. We have a performance plan in front of us that is intended to encompass the fiscal year April 1 to March 31, the year that we're now engaged in. It seems to me that when we are talking about performance plans, we're talking about the idea of delivering on a set of objectives that are understood and in place at the beginning of the period that we are about to evaluate.
[1600]
It seems to me that we are talking about delivering on achieving the things that we know before we start are the goals for the year, as opposed to saying: "Well, the year's about to begin; the first thing we're going to do is set up a bunch of goals about what we would like to achieve and then figure out at the end of the year if we've actually met them."
I recognize that to some extent, this disconnect that I've talked about may be the result of a change in ministers happening around the end of the fiscal year. It also seems to me to be a kind of systemic aspect of the public policy-making process. If the minister wants to do something fairly new and different in the course of the current fiscal year, how does that fit into the idea of a performance plan that really looks, in the broadest possible terms, like an exercise in attempting to measure the success in delivering that which is ongoing? If the minister has some comment on that, I'd be grateful.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that the performance plan does speak to the totality of ministry programs and objectives. In that way, it should encompass within that totality the aspirations of that particular minister, which affect in some substantive way the goals or objectives that are being sought within the ministry.
Having said that, I don't think anyone would intend the performance plan to be a straitjacket either, and I guess that becomes a question of timing. But let me speak to the very particular issue the member raises with respect to this year, because I think it is illustrative. The goals that I talked about, when I rose and spoke at the beginning here, as the member indicates, do reflect both my personal priorities and my sense of public priorities. I wouldn't pretend that they mark huge departures from policy. They put emphasis in certain areas and build upon certain areas and put focus.
In fact, I decided when I became minister, partly for the reason the member gives -- because we're coming into a legislative session, and because I did not have time perhaps to do the policy work for a more ambitious agenda -- to get good briefings, as best I could, on areas that were of interest to me, and all areas, and to see whether there was room within those areas to provide a bit of direction and leave a bit of an imprint.
I think the areas outlined in the beginning are reflective of that -- the areas that build on things the ministry has done -- but say: "Let's put more emphasis there. Let's see if we can do even better in terms of youth violence, in terms of community justice initiatives and in terms of technology." That in turn, that process in which I was engaged -- and one of the real privileges of being a minister is the opportunity to leave a little print here and there, hopefully a positive one -- was reflected in the development of the performance plan.
As I say, I'm sure in small ways, given the totality of the ministry's activities
Had I a bold new vision that was not here, I would agree with the member that it would be an obligation to come forward and at least amend the plan or indicate where my vision had somehow departed from the plan and commit to amending it. That hasn't been the case here. I have worked to try to set some directions, and the ministry has diligently tried to accommodate that within a performance plan that I feel comfortable with. I think that shows that we can allow these plans to provide direction, but still allow ministers and those of us engaged in this process to be dynamic.
[1605]
G. Plant: The last area or two I want to cover in terms of a general discussion of performance plans are, I suppose, best captured by the word accountability.
It's nice to have a set of expected outcomes -- performance measure outcomes, performance measure outputs. I understand that the intention is to report on a regular and perhaps relatively continuous basis, if that is appropriate in particular cases, on the extent to which the ministry has met its objectives.
Then I guess the question is: what happens if the ministry doesn't? What are the incentives for achievement or overachievement? Are there any such incentives? What, if any, would be the penalties for non-achievement built into this system -- in the obviously highly unlikely event that that should arise? It does seem to me -- not to be facetious about it -- that it's legitimate to explore the issue of accountability and to get some sense from the minister, at the outset of this process, how he sees that working in this context.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm tempted to resort to an old Yogi Berra-ism. Yogi Berra once said: "If you don't know where you're going, you'll probably get there." There is certain intrinsic satisfaction in knowing where you're going and getting there. Beyond that, in this place, if you are courageous enough to stay where you're going and you don't get there,
[ Page 15523 ]
you pay a price. If you do, hopefully you get rewards. I don't mean this as a minister; that's the way the system works. People are goal-oriented, and where goals are clearly defined
What I think the performance plan does is provide a framework for evaluation on a number of different levels -- performance evaluation within the ministry in terms of how staff are working, which can be used by managers, and performance evaluation within this House as to how ministers are doing. Ministers respond to those positive and negative inducements by asking their deputies to take action.
I don't want to be glib about this, but the plan itself, by articulating goals in a very explicit way, provides a set of incentives. The system will provide the incentives if you are clear about your goals. Some of these goals -- the member, again, has made this point himself -- are ones that you may not be able to achieve despite your best efforts. You may do everything right and still may see the level of serious crime increase, for example, because of circumstances that are beyond your control. It's a question, I think, of measuring achievement not in terms of whether the goal has been achieved in each and every case but whether the strategies to achieve it have been pursued, whether those strategies have been worthwhile and whether the result would have been worse had you not pursued those strategies.
There is no plan that I have, but I am open to the member's suggestions to award gold stars or financial inducements
G. Plant: Stock options.
Hon. A. Petter:
I do think the plan does create, within a system that already has strong incentives and disincentives to perform and to meet goals
G. Plant: We'll see how this moves along, I guess, is probably what it comes down to in general terms. Obviously the result that I would think most of us want would be that reasonable and principal objectives are set for policies and programs, outcomes are expressed in terms that make some sense, and then they're in fact achieved. Perhaps public confidence in the work of government would actually increase. At the very least, if this is done in a way that's more open and there's more publicity around how government is measuring its performance, then I would think that political accountability in the most general sense will probably increase. We'll see if that's enough over time or not.
[1610]
I do want to spend a moment or two on what I think the minister might not object to my calling his priority areas of enhanced effort, or something like that. The minister's right in something he said earlier: they've made their way into the performance plan. At the bottom of the very first page of the introduction, where the plan talks about the Attorney General's direction: "
Let me do it in reverse order, because I want to start with technology. I was listening to what the minister did say in his opening remarks about technology. I don't want to unfairly mischaracterize what he said, and I don't mean to be critical about this. It seemed to me that what the Attorney General was talking about was enhancing efforts down certain paths that are already established -- improving or enhancing the accessibility of certain technological facilities that are already in place, either as pilot projects or otherwise.
Video conferencing exists now, and I take it that what the minister means when he talks about his personal goals around the technology is to ensure -- within limited resources and with the appropriate safeguards -- that video conferencing is expanded where practical, that the Justin program, which is a part of the way in which the criminal court system can maintain some sort of tracking of offenders, is hopefully expanded down some of the same paths that have been developed over the last number of years.
That would be slightly different from saying: "I have a completely new approach to technology." If it were in fact that last thing, I'd like to hear it. I guess I'm coming back to something the minister said in his remarks a moment or so ago -- that what he's talking about is enhanced effort in a number of areas within a very wide-ranging ministry, where he's going to be paying particular attention to see that progress is made over the course of the next year rather than reinventing these areas from the ground up.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I haven't been working late in my technology lab, if that's what the member's concerned about.
What I would say is this: I haven't come forward with a personal technology vision for the ministry. What I've come forward with is a sense of the potential that exists from existing technologies and some that are in developmental stage but not of my own making, the potential that exists to really help improve the values of the justice system, which I think the member would agree are important to pursue -- providing access to the courts by making the system operate more efficiently by improving public safety.
In the case of video conferencing, which the member mentioned, if we can utilize video conferencing as a way of minimizing the need to transport remand prisoners, for example, particularly in remote areas where there's high cost and public risk, potentially, from doing that, we should do that; we should target that. We should take advantage of this, and we should harness it.
[1615]
The member is right; I haven't come from my previous portfolio with a whole bunch of technology ideas that I've suddenly said need to be implemented. What I said in talking to staff is that I'm impressed, frankly, by the capacity this ministry has already harnessed in respect of technology. I'm even more impressed by the potential that exists to direct that technology in a way that can further benefit communities.
[ Page 15524 ]
I'll give a very local example that's close to my own home and that's the E-Comm system which has been put in place in terms of emergency communications for police, fire and ambulance in southwest B.C. Work has been ongoing and is desperately needed in southern Vancouver Island to have an emergency response system that also links together the various emergency response providers. I want to see that work pursued, because I think it's an important issue of public safety that police departments be able to communicate with each other -- let alone with the fire and ambulance -- because of public safety concerns.
So the member's right. I'm talking about taking technology that is already known and is starting to produce demonstrable benefits, and I'm harnessing it and utilizing it to a greater extent. I'm also talking about the fact that the ministry itself has a very impressive capacity to bring forward innovative and new technologies. I'm encouraging the ministry to do that, as well, but not in a way that I have some personal predetermined view. My view is to make sure we use all these opportunities to maximize the value of technology for the values that I think are important in the justice system -- the efficiency and accessibility of the system, public safety and the ability to deliver programs in a way that is more convenient as well.
I gave the example in my opening speech of a person in a wheelchair -- a physically disabled person -- who was spared huge inconvenience by a simple use of technology. The court system was facilitated in its ability to hear from that individual as a result.
G. Plant: That's helpful, and I appreciate the minister's answer. I hope that I'm not stepping out of line in suggesting that the likelihood is that the general thrust of his remarks in relation to the issue of technology would be the kind of thing that he might say if we pursued the other areas that he's identified as priorities. If I'm wrong -- if there's something that he has particularly in mind in relation to community safety or services to youth or victims of crime that really ought to be added to the discussion because it represents a fairly significant change of direction -- I invite him to do that.
I do so in the context of recognizing the way the political system operates as we have these debates. It seems to be almost encouraged, as a result of the idea of performance plans
With respect to his specific example, it seems to me that any work that the minister, the Attorney General, can do to encourage the development of integrated communications facilities among the police forces of southern Vancouver Island is good work that has enormous potential for improving the way police services are delivered. But if I've missed something in terms of big picture changes that the minister is in a position to talk about now as part of this general introduction to the estimates debate, now is as good a time as any to have that discussion.
[1620]
Hon. A. Petter: Big picture changes -- well, I think the picture is big. The paints may not be altogether new, but the picture is big. I think this government set a direction a few years ago, under my predecessor, where the focus was sort of on two dimensions. One was on what we do to those people who come in to the criminal justice system, and the commitment was, certainly with respect to serious offenders, to really get tough and demonstrate that. A number of initiatives I think confirm that, including the propensity to seek dangerous offender designation and the like, which we may end up talking about.
There was also a commitment that my predecessor carried through to look at restorative justice programs and the like. I think there is a component which was also part of that vision which can be given added animation and focus. I don't think that makes it any less important, though; in fact, in some ways I think it makes it more important -- so that the picture is complete. That is around providing support for communities. I agree with the member's comments earlier about how communities can come to their own solutions and their own views, and it isn't a matter of the amount of resources you put into it.
There is a tremendous opportunity in government to be able to set some directions and some priorities. It doesn't necessarily mean huge new amounts of resources; it doesn't necessarily mean that the materials you're working with are altogether new. Simply by directing a focus on the part of government and encouraging a process of collaboration with the communities, you can make a difference. There's been a lot of very successful initiatives; the member referred to one in the riding of one of my colleagues, in Comox, on community justice. We should take those best practices and encourage other communities to look at them and choose from them and do the same. That may sound like it's incremental, but if you put all those communities together, you end up with a big picture. I think you probably end up with a better result than if I as minister sat at some blackboard and devised some grand scheme.
I want to resist the member's suggestion -- that may not have been there -- that somehow coming up with a grand scheme, announcing it in some big way and putting a lot of bucks behind it is a bigger, better thing to do than taking a lot of things that are tried and maybe are working and starting to make linkages and encouraging others to buy into them. I believe that is in many ways more important. It may not be as sexy; it may not gain you the same degree of recognition. But in terms of actually making a difference, I think it can be very important.
Too often in government we make the announcement and move on. I hope we can make some real connections with communities in a facilitative way. I hope we can really take some of these superb programs -- I'm so excited about some of these programs involving youth, because I've seen some of them in action, and I've heard of them -- and really animate the good work that's being done and get an increased awareness around those issues. These programs where youth travel from school to school and talk about violence issues, about bullying, about intolerance
[ Page 15525 ]
If the member means: is this new, with big bucks and a grand design? -- the answer is no. Is it less important for being a commitment to work on important issues in a more incremental, facilitative way? I think it's as important or more important, and I don't think it should be overlooked.
[1625]
G. Plant: I think I probably am obliged to reassure the minister that I wasn't intending to be judgmental. I was entirely intending just to find out what the minister's own agenda and plans were, and that's helpful. I suppose you could say that in systems that are working, minor changes are probably the most that should be achieved. Whether or not that is a completely accurate description of every part of the justice system, I can't say. What I can say is that the justice system is so interconnected and so interrelated that significant change in one area is almost certain to have unintended consequences in some other area, and it's difficult to foresee them.
To give an example -- and I do assure the minister that we will return to this example -- some changes in the role of duty counsel funded by the Legal Services Society may be necessary from the perspective of managing the Legal Services Society budget. They're going to have an impact -- I think they're already having an impact -- in some courtrooms in terms of the demand then placed on court workers who are not duty counsel and/or judges or justices of the peace, who will have, on first appearance, people accused of criminal offences who may not be represented by counsel. That may not be the best example, but it's an example that occurs to me of how complicated the system is and how complicated any attempt at change is, even when the change is well-intended -- which isn't necessarily the case in the example I gave.
I want to move on now to ask what is a sort of potpourri of questions that are still introductory and then, after I've done that, to move into a discussion of some topics which I have attempted to organize according to the branches where I think responsibility lies. I can reassure the minister that my intention, when we get to the list of proposed debate sequence that his staff provided to me, is to try to move through the debate according to that sequence. We're not quite there yet, though. I want to ask some general questions that I think belong in the opening part of this debate, because I couldn't figure out where else to put them.
There has been public interest in the issue of the impact of wage increases and other contractual arrangements on the cost of the public sector. The minister will recall that some weeks ago there was a commitment made by the Premier to table some documentation that was intended to explain the impact of the labour accords on the cost of government. My question for the minister is whether an analysis of this impact has been done within his ministry and if he can tell us what the impact is -- or the wage lift, if that's the right term -- for public sector employees within the Ministry of Attorney General over the fiscal year just ended and the fiscal year that we have just embarked upon.
Hon. A. Petter: I was remiss. I should have indicated to the committee that I've been joined -- when we were talking about technology, in fact -- by Rick McCandless, who is assistant deputy minister in the court services branch and is very well versed in some of the technological issues, if we want to get back to them.
If I understand the member's question correctly, if the question is, "What is the incremental cost of the 2 percent wage lift on the ministry's budget in this year?" the answer would be $6.7 million, which represents 2 percent of the wage bill.
[1630]
G. Plant: In addition to the 2 percent wage lift there is also the question of whether the so-called accords that have been negotiated across a variety of places in the public sector have an impact on this ministry. If so, what is that impact in dollar terms?
[B. Goodacre in the chair.]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm advised that there is no additional accord cost that shows up that we're aware of here. I have to be careful, because I'm not quite sure what is accord and what isn't. In the context of the public sector wage discussions, I believe that there were adjustments made in terms of the amount of contribution that was required by government with respect to pension contributions because of the fact that some of the pension plans were in surplus. I believe that there's in fact a reduction here in the amount we're required to contribute to those plans as a result. Whether that was part of an accord or not part of an accord, I don't know, but I think that's the one impact that we're aware of.
I suppose the other impact, which is slightly different than the one the member is talking about, is in the contributions we make to agencies. When this ministry had responsibility for immigration -- for example, non-profit agencies -- the contributions we made were affected by agreements that were reached with respect to those non-profit agencies. But I think most of that has now left this ministry with the immigration component which went to another ministry.
G. Plant: Other elements of the so-called accords that were part of the public discussion included arrangements intended to achieve pay equity, increased benefit payments and, I think, although it's not pay equity, the adjustments, in some cases, to bring people who were contract or part-time employees into full-time positions. Those are at least some of the other things that have been part of the public discussion around so-called accord costs in other contexts. Perhaps I could leave those specific examples with the minister and see if they are the subject of any analysis that he knows of inside his ministry.
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to follow up and provide the documents to the member. I understand that there was a component for low-wage redress -- in fact, I think it was in the documents that were released -- of $400,000 in respect of corrections in community justice budgets' salaries. I think that is the one impact that we're aware of that goes beyond the 2 percent within the staff complement of the ministry.
G. Plant: Is the document that the minister refers to the already released document? If so, I don't need to trouble the minister for it.
[1635]
Hon. A. Petter: Yeah, that is the document I was referring to.
[ Page 15526 ]
G. Plant: So there's no internal ministry analysis that adds to anything that was already publicly disclosed. Would that be a correct statement?
Hon. A. Petter: I am advised that is a correct statement.
G. Plant: A different topic. The payment of legal fees has also been the subject of some public interest lately. There is a policy that exists to provide for the payment of legal fees when senior ministry officials are sued in the course of their duties. And, as I understand it, there is also a Treasury Board policy statement -- in fact, I think the minister signed it in one of his former roles -- that essentially extends the application of that policy to cabinet ministers. The lawyer in me wants to say that the policy that exists for senior officials applies mutatis mutandis to cabinet ministers. I couldn't resist the opportunity.
My understanding is that that policy is essentially administered by PSERC. But the question, I suppose, is: even if that is so, do the expenses that are incurred as a result of the application of that policy appear in the public accounts of the Ministry of Attorney General or somewhere else?
Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that the practice that is most often followed in these cases is that the cost would be covered by the Ministry of Attorney General directly and therefore would show up in this budget. But then there would be an attempt to recover that cost from the relevant ministry -- with respect to the legal cost. So if the senior official or minister were minister of some other ministry, there would be an attempt to recover those costs from that ministry and recapture them as the client ministry.
G. Plant: I recognize that the government has taken a position with respect to the application of the rules of solicitor-client privilege and disclosure of these fees and also that there's been a change in policy in terms of the application of those rules to matters going forward. Within that context, without engaging in the debate about the propriety of that, I'm interested in what disclosure, if any, is currently made in the public accounts to indicate, for example, the total amount paid by the government in any given year in respect of the application of this policy.
Hon. A. Petter: Where the legal services are provided by outside counsel -- that is, outside of government -- the information is provided. The total amount that is billed by a particular legal firm or lawyer in a given year is disclosed on that basis, as I understand.
G. Plant: Would I be correct, though, in assuming that there is nothing to indicate in that disclosure that it is an amount that relates to the application of this particular policy of indemnification? It could be, for example, that the amount for a particular law firm relates to work done advising the Ministry of Highways on the appropriate terms and conditions of a right-of-way or some other matter. There's really no way of getting below those numbers into a determination of the actual amount spent by government in respect of its application of this policy of indemnification that we've been talking about. Is that correct?
[1640]
Hon. A. Petter: That is correct, and that is in part because of the principles the member has referred to with respect to solicitor-client privilege, so as to not report these amounts in a way that violated that principle. Having said that, for the same reason the member has already indicated, with respect to elected officials, we will be seeking waivers before indemnifications are granted so that the amounts can and will be disclosed, once legal proceedings are completed, on a case-by-case basis with respect to the particular costs that are incurred. We'll proceed on that basis so that in the future there will be an opportunity for members to gain that information with respect to elected officials. The member understands how that policy came about as well as I do.
G. Plant: It occurs to me that the policy considerations that, from the government's perspective, may have applied to ensure that privilege was maintained with respect to the particular amounts paid in particular matters as a result of the application of this policy
So I will pursue the issue that much further. What is wrong with a disclosure of a global figure that says: "Because this policy exists, we've applied it; we're not actually going to tell you how and when we've applied it, but we will tell you that its application has cost the taxpayers X dollars in this particular fiscal year"? What is the minister's response to that?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I guess my response is that it's
The principle I've been trying to operate under is one that tries to maximize disclosure where possible. That's why we changed the policy with respect to elected officials. But it's a worthwhile suggestion, and I'd certainly consider it.
G. Plant: I do encourage the minister to consider it. It might be appropriate in this context to make a general comment. That is, I think there are legitimate areas within which the previous policy operated. I don't think that this is an all-or-nothing exercise. It's a question of drawing a line or striking a balance.
One particular example that I don't know was ever part of a public discussion -- though it ought to have been -- is that there may be instances where the very fact of a retainer, within the terms of the policy, would become a breech of the basic idea of solicitor-client privilege. Just knowing that someone has engaged, or has been required to engage, the application of the policy might offend some of what is important about solicitor-client privilege.
[ Page 15527 ]
[1645]
I'm not sure that the public policy resolution that the government has achieved here strikes the right balance yet. It is certainly progress in the right direction, but I raise the example that I do because I don't want the minister to think that anyone in the opposition underestimates the complexity of the challenge of striking a better balance. At the same time, I want to continue to make the point that the taxpayers are paying, and in some way or other the taxpayers are perhaps entitled to know, as I said earlier, what on an overall aggregate basis this is costing in a particular year. It's not really something that the minister needs to respond to. It's more by way of observation.
But I do now want to take the minister to two other specific situations. The language of the policy document, which we've been talking about up until this point, talks about what happens when a senior official -- and by analogy, a minister -- is sued. There is also language in that policy that allows for the possibility that, in certain instances, the senior official -- and by analogy, a minister -- may actually be able to take an action for defamation where his or her character has been impugned; and there are some safeguards in the processes in the policy document that apply to that case.
There are two situations, however, which don't seem to me to be caught by the policy. One is the situation of a senior official or minister as a witness in proceedings to which he or she is not a party. The second is the situation in which a cabinet minister is subject to a criminal investigation in respect of matters undertaken during the course of his or her duties in office. My first question is: what is the basis upon which the government says that it has the authority to indemnify officials and ministers for legal costs incurred by them in each of those two examples?
Hon. A. Petter: As the member indicated, these policies are not with me as Attorney General. I don't want to be unresponsive, but they may be questions that he'd be better to take up, at least in detail, with the Minister of Finance, with the minister responsible for PSERC. As I understand it, however, the longstanding practice has been -- with respect to senior officials and, by implication, through the policy that they extended to ministers -- that legal services be provided where such officials are called to be witnesses in a proceeding, and legal counsel is required to assist them in preparing for that role as witness. That is not something recent, and as it has applied to senior officials, it has been applied as a matter of policy and discretion to implement that policy consistently.
[1650]
On the case of the criminal investigation, my understanding is that that is done under the Financial Administration Act through specific indemnity agreements and has been done
G. Plant: I take it that in each of these three types of situations -- that is, a civil suit, where the policy that we talked about directly applies; the situation of witnesses; and the situation of criminal proceedings -- the decision whether or not to invoke the policy, to apply the practice, to make the indemnity agreement, is not made by the Attorney General but rather is made somewhere else in government. I don't want to let the Attorney General off the hook, but if that's so then he'll tell me.
Hon. A. Petter: The Ministry of Attorney General certainly provides advice in respect of the appropriateness of, or the need for, legal counsel and its appropriateness. But the decision, as the member has indicated, is made elsewhere, either by PSERC or the Ministry of Finance.
G. Plant: My last question should probably have had that qualification built into it, because at least in respect of the policy that I've seen, the Ministry of Attorney General expressly has a role in respect of the implementation of that policy, but the final decision whether or not to provide the coverage, if you will, is outside the Ministry of Attorney General. I take it that's what the minister's last answer intended.
Hon. A. Petter: Correct.
G. Plant: Once the decision has been made to grant the indemnity or to pay the fees associated with attendance as a witness, does the Ministry of Attorney General have administration, if you will, of the retainers, the legal fees and so on?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the Ministry of Attorney General would set up the arrangements with respect to the provision of legal counsel. If counsel were provided from outside, that arrangement would have to conform with the fee schedule and billing practices and supervision of those through the ministry that would apply to any legal matter.
G. Plant: Now to the question of disclosure of amounts paid. We determined that in the case of the amounts paid pursuant to the policy that applies in the case of civil suits, it's not possible, through the public accounts, to determine how much the government has actually paid, other than by at least seeing the schedule of grants and contributions -- or whatever it's called -- that will contain the disclosure of amounts paid to particular law firms. Would the same disclosure opportunities, or lack thereof, apply in the case of the administration of the fee arrangements in respect of witnesses and criminal proceedings?
[1655]
Hon. A. Petter: The issues of solicitor-client privilege are the same in respect of the relationship, even though the matter may be different. Therefore the situation would be the same. I just should clarify and spare the member a subsequent question he might have asked: it is our intention that with respect to elected officials, the waiver that would be sought would be sought in any of those circumstances, so that those amounts would then become disposable.
G. Plant: I think I'm bound to ask this question. I gather that when we are dealing with criminal indemnification for criminal proceedings, the government's position is that there is a provision in the Financial Administration Act that permits
[ Page 15528 ]
this to take place. The minister suggests that for a fuller explanation of that, the better place to go would be the Finance minister. I think that's fair enough.
I can see that in the case of legal representation in civil suits we have an express policy. I can sort of draw a line, a track, that gives me some sense that the government is legally entitled to in fact offer this indemnity. The grey one is the one in the middle, the witness fee payments or the payment to counsel to give advice and representation, where senior officials and ministers are required to attend proceedings as witnesses even though they are not a party.
The minister's explanation was that this is a long-standing practice. Is the minister, representing here the Ministry of the Attorney General, comfortable that the Crown in fact has the legal authority to make these arrangements?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. Based on the advice I have received, I am quite comfortable that the legal authority is there. To again perhaps anticipate where the member is going, I do think that we should look at trying to update the policy to reflect the reality. I understand that PSERC is in fact engaged in such a review and potential update of the policy. I think it would be a beneficial thing to clarify where we are now at in terms of the practices that have evolved and then expose that more clearly and explicitly through a new reworked policy.
G. Plant: On a related but somewhat separate topic, there was a press announcement a month or so ago -- I think it's probably more than that now -- with respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty litigation in the United States. The government announced that in the spirit of building a new relationship of cooperation with the United States, the Pacific Salmon Treaty litigation commenced in the United States was going to be abandoned. I think that may well, in fact, have been a decision that the government made as long ago as last November, which would of course be well into the past fiscal year.
I guess the question I have is: how much did that particular lawsuit cost Her Majesty?
Hon. A. Petter: I don't have that number at hand, but I would happy to get it for the member. I should say that with respect to litigation that has ceased, it is my view that we should, in the spirit of disclosure once the matter has ended -- notwithstanding claims of solicitor-client privilege that government itself can make and that have been commented on by the information and privacy commissioner -- adopt the practice of disclosing the costs of litigation.
[1700]
I say that because there was a Times Colonist editorial recently suggesting that wasn't the government policy. I think it's important to make it clear that it is the government policy. Once the matter has ended, that would be disclosed.
I don't happen to have the number for the fisheries litigation, but we will talk to the ministry and look at getting it for the member.
G. Plant: I look forward to receiving that information.
I want to move to another topic: the appointment of judges. Maybe one of the most important things, in fact, that the Attorney General has influence in, if not complete control over, is the appointment of Provincial Court judges. The act with respect to the Provincial Court judges creates a council -- I think it's called a council -- that is composed of members of the legal community, including the president of the Law Society and the B.C. branch of the CBA and others, who make a report or recommendation of some sort. I believe it goes to the Ministry of Attorney General. The appointment decision is made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under the Great Seal. It is, I think, perhaps one of the more important things that an Attorney General has influence in, because, of course, the people that are appointed do in fact dispense justice every day in Her Majesty's court.
I am interested in having the Attorney General explain how that process works. And, at the end of the day, what are the criteria that he will apply to his role in that decision-making process in selecting Provincial Court judges?
Hon. A. Petter: I sometimes wonder if the member isn't just being kind in asking questions to which he knows at least two-thirds of the answer anyway. As I understand the process, and he can correct me, because I'm
People apply to the Judicial Council and express their interest or the like in terms of serving as Provincial Court judges and are considered. The council makes a judgment as to those who they deem to be qualified. Those names are then passed on to the Attorney General -- sometimes, I think, with some more particular recommendations and sometimes not. Then the Attorney General makes a judgment as to which names to bring forward to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The appointments -- assuming the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council agrees -- are then made.
I've had very limited experience with this -- as one of my very happy duties, actually. Shortly after becoming Attorney General, there was a process that was already underway with four candidates who were strongly supported by the Judicial Council and who struck me as extremely capable candidates. So I was very happy to bring their names forward.
The criteria. I think the criteria obviously, first and foremost, are the ones that the Judicial Council uses in terms of determining their competence, and the experience and judgment that they bring to the job. Beyond that, I think it's desirable to find
[1705]
I'm not sure I can be more specific than that, but that may be because I was given a very easy job with the first four names that were presented to me through the council and which I was happy to recommend for appointment. I may be able to answer the member's question if and when I get the opportunity to fill some vacancies in the future.
G. Plant: I think the process part of the last question is generally well known, but I thought that perhaps it was important to link that with the criteria aspect of the question.
[ Page 15529 ]
The minister's answer, I think, perhaps begs this question. The example given, as I understand it, was a situation where there was a report or recommendation from the council identifying four strongly supported candidates, and there were four appointments to be made.
You might say the minister is in a different position there than if, for example, the minister has one or two appointments to make but has a list of six or eight potential candidates. I'm sure the criteria are the same. This I legitimately don't know. Does the council in fact work on that basis -- that there would be times when the minister would in fact get a list longer than the number of vacancies he was hoping to fill?
Hon. A. Petter: In fact -- and I suppose this is a matter of one's judgment and policy -- I can say, because I have addressed my mind to this, that in my view, the appropriate thing is for the council to submit the full list of names of those who are qualified, so that there is the opportunity for the minister to make a judgment as to those candidates who are particularly recommended, versus the candidate pool. Ultimately, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is accountable for this decision. I'm not sure whether that has always been the practice, but that would certainly be, and is, my practice. However, the council and members of the council are sometimes particularly helpful in indicating particular support for particular candidates out of that larger pool.
I'm not sure how far I can go with the particularities of this process in this case; I'm not sure if that's appropriate to do. In my view, the minister should be presented with a full list of eligible candidates so as to see what the candidate pool is, but the council should be free to indicate those particular candidates that it feels at this time are the ones it would like to see appointed. Then the judgment can be made as to whether to accept that advice or not and be accountable for the decision. In this case it was very easy for me to accept the particular advice and to proceed with it -- but not in the absence of the possibility of other eligible and no doubt highly qualified candidates.
G. Plant: I think that actually is a statement of some significance in terms of how the decision-making process ought to work from the minister's perspective.
I don't mean for a moment to underestimate the subtlety of that balance between ensuring that the minister receives the best possible input from those who are statutorily charged with providing that input, on the one hand. On the other hand, perhaps I'm intentionally creating a situation where the minister, who will report to the cabinet, which is politically accountable, becomes captive to that input. I'm certain that that is a situation that no minister would like to find themselves in. So the distinction and the analysis the minister offers are useful.
Perhaps I could just carry the issue one step further. Does the council provide this advice to the minister on an as-and-when-needed basis? Or does this happen on a sort of a semi-annual basis, where the minister may or may not actually have a short or long list of vacancies to fill but is nonetheless getting a list of eligible candidates?
[1710]
Hon. A. Petter: I'm new to this process, and it was needed when I became minister. My understanding is that the practice has been to provide this information and update the list, etc., on an as-and-when-needed basis. As vacancies occur, the council then provides the list of those candidates who are currently eligible and whatever particular advice it may give with respect to those particular candidates that it believes should be provided the opportunity to fill the vacant position.
G. Plant: The council, which is constituted under the Provincial Court Act, contains, as I said earlier, a number of different individuals. Is the council currently fully staffed, as it were?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm advised that that's the case.
G. Plant: The council has broader functions than simply providing the government with input on judicial appointments. It also has the function of improving the quality of judicial service and reporting to the Attorney General on the matters that the Attorney General considers necessary. This, I think, is probably a useful opportunity -- or a useful context or conduit -- for the Attorney General to get input from distinguished members of the profession, including, I guess, the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court on how the legal system's working. Is this process used? And can the minister indicate whether, for example, these reports are made on a regular basis?
Hon. A. Petter: The information I'm given is that it has not been used in recent times, to anyone's knowledge here.
G. Plant: I always find it interesting to roam among the statute books of British Columbia for provisions that sit there.
I want to move from the area of judicial appointments to administrative tribunal appointments. I'm looking for a copy of a report I thought I had, a "Report on Independence, Accountability and Appointment Processes in British Columbia Tribunals," prepared by Philip Bryden and Ron Hatch in September 1999 for the B.C. Council of Administrative Tribunals.
There is a bit of a trend across the country -- and I think it may have been given a certain amount of impetus in Ontario a few years ago -- to try to examine the question of appointments to administrative tribunals and the quality of service provided by administrative tribunals in a more principled and structured way than has been the case, I think, over the past longer period of time. I think that administrative tribunals tend to get created more or less on an ad hoc basis, because they're created in the context of a public policy response to a particular issue. They're not necessarily created with a view to ensuring that there is one set of guiding principles that applies to all administrative tribunals or boards or agencies across the province.
I don't propose to undertake a detailed discussion of appointment processes for administrative tribunals. The minister, I think, is the minister responsible for some appointments to some fairly important tribunals. Can the minister indicate whether this issue -- that is, the appointment process, quality control mechanisms, efficiency, accountability, that sort of stuff -- has the ear of his ministry? If so, how, and what is the ministry doing to advance this issue?
[1715]
Hon. A. Petter: I can say that the ministry's ear is certainly open to suggestions to improve accountability and
[ Page 15530 ]
mechanisms for improving the functioning of administrative tribunals, including issues regarding appointment. The ministry is in discussions on an ongoing basis with the B.C. Council of Administrative Tribunals, for whom I think the report that the member is referring to was prepared. Those discussions focus on a variety of issues, but with particular reference to trying to improve accountability structures and the like.
G. Plant: We may get a chance to pursue that bit later on. I had, I think, three more introductory areas -- each of which, I hope, will be a little briefer. One of the statutory accounts within the ministry is for expenses under the Inquiry Act. The way that's usually done is there's an allocation every year. I don't have the number in front of me; I think it's the same amount every year. At the end of the year there's an actual cost, and the government finds the money for the actual cost. I think the actual expenses for 1998, as disclosed in the public accounts, were $3.556 million. I wonder if the minister has the figure yet for inquiries for the fiscal year just ended, 1999-2000.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm told we don't have that figure yet -- no.
G. Plant: Could I get the minister's help in providing me with that when the number becomes available? I see the minister nodding.
The other thing I guess I'd like, if possible, would be a breakdown of the $3.556 million figure for '98-99 in terms of how much was spent on which inquiry. Maybe that's already available and readily at hand. I'll give the minister a chance to see.
Hon. A. Petter: Ministry staff will look, and if it's available, I'll be happy to provide it orally, shortly. Assuming that it isn't readily available, I will certainly undertake to provide it to the member as soon as it becomes available -- if it's available now, once we find it, or if it isn't, once it becomes available.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. This is one of the things I forgot to ask during the briefings. I'm sure that had I asked it then, I would have had the answer long ago.
Two inquiries in particular that I'm interested in the cost of
[1720]
Hon. A. Petter: I would be happy to provide this information, if only to dissuade the opposition from constantly asking for public inquiries.
In respect to the Barrett commission
With respect to the Smith commission, the cost of that inquiry to date -- an inquiry the opposition worked hard to get, so you bear full responsibility for this, hon. member -- is $3,702,144. That's to date, as of March 31, 2000. I think, in fact, there was some press coverage with a higher amount that added that plus something else. I don't know. That's the number I have, in any event, in the last day or so.
The Inquiry Act actual for '99-2000 -- the figure that I have here -- is $2.558 million.
G. Plant: Which is probably
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
A Voice: I hadn't noticed, Geoff.
G. Plant: You're not allowed to comment on that.
The Chair: This is vote 19. We could call a vote, if the member
G. Plant: You know, I think I'd vote no at this point, and I so desperately want to be able to vote yes. There weren't any other inquiries, presumably, in '99-2000, other than Barrett 2 and Smith.
Hon. A. Petter: Methinks the member is right, but we'll check and get back if he isn't. Silence will be assent from henceforth.
G. Plant: And the Barrett figure was for Barrett 2. Is that right?
Hon. A. Petter: Barrett 2.
G. Plant: I hear the minister agreeing. Does the minister have the Barrett 1 figure readily to hand?
Hon. A. Petter: I do. The cost was $415,082.
G. Plant: On a completely different subject, the government experienced a setback in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in relation to third-party spending restrictions that exist in the Election Act. It would seem to me that an eminently reasonable course for the government to take in response to that trial decision is to commit to changing the provisions of the Election Act to comply with what I think the appropriate constitutional requirements are.
I'm not certain, though, if the government's current course is to appeal Mr. Justice Brenner's decision or not. I want to undertake a searching scrutiny of the Attorney's present intentions in relation to that particular piece of litigation, which engages a statute for which he has some responsibility.
Hon. A. Petter: The decision that was made and announced was that we would not be appealing that decision.
G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's clarification on that point.
[ Page 15531 ]
The last thing for now in terms of, I guess, preliminary observations is the question of the B.C. Law Institute. I asked the question in written form some weeks ago whether the ministry had any particular projects in mind for the B.C. Law Institute in the current fiscal year, and I think the answer was: "Nothing is currently provided for."
[1725]
The minister will recall that the B.C. Law Institute is something like the replacement for the old B.C. Law Reform Commission. I believe there is a need for an agency independent of government that has a mandate to consider the state of the law in British Columbia and, in particular, the state of private law and the kind of law that might be described as non-political -- areas of the law that don't often engage the attention of elected officials.
I have an interest in watching what the B.C. Law Institute does. Not long ago I pulled off a web site the work that the Law Commission of England does, in terms of the number of reports they have underway at any given time. It's a pretty long list. Does the minister have any plans for using the B.C. Law Institute for any projects? Does the answer to the question I was given in the letter remain true? If so, what does the minister think of the general project of private law reform?
Hon. A. Petter: I agree with the member concerning the value of having an institute successor to the Law Reform Commission-type institute that can undertake a review of legal matters and provide an independent and sometimes very fresh look at issues. I have not, to this point, determined to send anything to the institute -- which is to say that I have not decided to give the institute any particular tasks at this time, but I also haven't decided not to. Does that make sense?
I understand my deputy has had discussions with the Law Institute to look at possible areas of interest. The member may want to communicate some he thinks would be well passed on to the institute; I'm certainly open to that. It's not something, quite honestly, that I've had a chance to turn my mind to. I do agree that the value of having an institute of this kind to deal with difficult issues -- to cut through and examine issues that might not occupy the attention of government or other agencies -- is an extremely valuable role and an important part of law reform. It can assist in the public debate on how we resolve legal issues.
I've already benefited from some of the work of the Law Institute in respect of matters I've dealt with since becoming Attorney General. I'm enthusiastic about the role of the Institute, and I hope there will be opportunity for the Institute to do further work on behalf of government. I'm certainly open to suggestions.
G. Plant: I'll take up the minister's invitation. I'll begin the acceptance of that by drawing to the minister's attention, as I feel I must, a judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in a case called JJM Construction Ltd. v. Sandspit Harbour Society. In that judgment, which I think related mainly to costs, an issue arose in some fairly complex construction litigation. Madam Justice Southin of the Court of Appeal went to some pains to draw the attention of legislators to what she describes as "a very unfortunate extension of the tort of negligence
I think it might be useful to read some of what she had to say. If the minister hasn't already heard it, I'm sure he will find it interesting. "In saying that I wish to draw attention to this problem, I am well aware that my words may fall into a void. Only the Legislature of British Columbia can remedy the ill." I'll describe the ill in a moment.
"It is my observation that remedying the present ills of the civil law -- there are others -- does not much engage the energies of the hon. members. There are two reasons for this state of affairs. First, as the state of the civil law does not excite the electorate -- there are few, if any, votes in law reform; in this case, law restoration might be the better term -- the members pay little attention to it, and, secondly, while there are members of that august body who are members of the legal profession, none would, I think, describe himself as a 'lawyer's lawyer."'
[1730]
Well, there we are. Shortly put, her Ladyship's point is that the Legislature -- and I want to quote again:
She goes on, and she has other advice. Her Ladyship is a renowned, truly remarkable scholar of private law. I'm not certain whether her recommendation is right or wrong in terms of whether the law should or should not be changed. I do know that the field is full of opportunities to consider reform of the legal system. I'm certain that the minister is now delighted to have been told that while he may be a lawyer, he is certainly not a lawyer's lawyer, like the rest of us."
. . . ought to enact that architects and engineers owe no duty of care in tort to persons other than their clients, and owners letting contracts for the construction of works owe no duty of care either to the general contractor or the subcontractor. I am speaking only of a duty of care as a foundation for an action of negligent misstatement causing economic loss. To put it another way, the Legislature should" -- and she goes on to say -- "override the decision" of the Supreme Court of Canada in a particular case.
Probate fee recovery, court services branch -- could the minister provide me with details on
Hon. A. Petter: I'll go with the number I have here. I think the member asked for some other percentage, or something. He may want to clarify what that was. According to the information I have here, the amount that was collected for probate fees over the past year, that is to say the year '99-2000, was roughly $23.9 million.
G. Plant: I appreciate that. The letter that I've now found also indicates that for '97-98 the amount was $21 million. It then rose to $27.2 million in '98-99, only to fall, as the minister has indicated, to $23.9 million for the fiscal year just ended.
The number of probate filings took a big leap in 1998-99 and has dropped just a bit in the last year. Does the ministry have any sense of whether this fluctuation has causes, or is it considered to be sort of part of the ebb and flow of revenue collection?
Hon. A. Petter: I suspect the number of people who died is one important variable, and the amount of their estate is another important variable. If the member is suggesting, though, that maybe further considerations around estate planning and those kinds of things
[ Page 15532 ]
The member's right, though. The number went up substantially in '98-99 as the number of probate filings went up, and it has declined somewhat in '99-2000 as the number of probate filings went down. It would be guesswork as to what extent, if any, estate planning, for example, has had some influence on these numbers.
[1735]
G. Plant: I want to ask a question or two about court reporters. The minister knows that in some contexts -- including, I think, Supreme Court trials -- there were changes made in the not-too-distant past to replace the use of court reporters with the use of automated transcription technology. I guess the first question is: from the ministry's perspective, is the use of automatic transcription working? Is it effective? Is it efficient? That's a good start.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm advised that the introduction -- I think about two years ago -- of the automated system has been well received. It has also saved costs, of course, but it's been well received. Perhaps the best measure of that is that it is the rare exception in which the courts ask for there to be a non-automated transcription -- a human presence to do it in a traditional way. I think that is indicative of the fact that the automated system is seen to be working well and is indeed working well, meeting most of the needs of the courts and those who are in the courts.
G. Plant: I take it that there has been no formal audit or study of the success of this. It's more a question of responding on an exception basis and garnering from the lack of complaints that the system seems to be working well.
Hon. A. Petter: I understand that there was an evaluation done in the fairly early stages of introduction -- six months or so into the introduction of this program. It was a sample analysis, so it wasn't a comprehensive analysis. It indicated that the objectives were more than being met. Based upon that and upon the positive reception this initiative has received, the ministry is confident that the program is working well. But there hasn't been a fuller evaluation beyond that initial evaluation.
G. Plant: One of the issues that has been brought to my attention by people who do have some concerns with the current arrangement is that even in cases where a party to a proceeding in Provincial Court is prepared to pay for the use of a court reporter, there seems to be no ability to get a court reporter into a provincial courtroom. Altogether apart from the issue of assuming that the transcription is a successful experiment, I'm not sure what the good reason would be, if any, for barring court reporters from Provincial Court in circumstances where a party is prepared to pay whatever the additional cost would be for the service.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that in fact it has never been the practice for there to be manual transcription in Provincial Court; the transcription has always been done in an automated fashion. If the member is suggesting that there needs to be some exception made in Provincial Court for non-automated transcription, then I take it that would be a new policy or a new initiative. I guess one would have to decide or determine that there was some underlying purpose -- that it was needed.
As I understand it, after the seventies the practice in Provincial Court has been automated transcription. That has been the normal practice. Therefore I'm not quite sure why or under what circumstances parties would want to depart from that.
[1740]
G. Plant: I suspect that part of what is going on here is that increasingly Provincial Court is becoming a courtroom where fairly complicated litigation is taking place. The minister is quite right. For as long as I can remember, transcriptions in Provincial Court have been automated. There have not been official reporters there as a general practice.
When I go to the case of Provincial Courts, I'm not talking about the instance of the application of a recent change in policy but perhaps a slightly different variation on the general theme of the use of court reporters. The minister probably knows, from his interest in matters technological, that there is lots of technology now that allows court transcriptions to be made on what's called real-time basis, where counsel sitting in a courtroom can in fact see on the screen of their computer an unofficial transcript being created while the proceeding is under way.
I think that when Provincial Court was a place where there were perhaps three or four impaired driving cases happening a day, it was sort of the ebb and flow of the rough-and-tumble successor to the Magistrate's Court. There may not have been any good reason to worry about more sophisticated systems of court reporting. Now we have pretty long and sometimes quite complicated cases -- environmental prosecutions -- where I think there may be some reason to at least consider having the option available to parties, if they want, to use court reporters in place of the transcription service. I think that's an example of the issue that I'm talking about, and I invite the minister's further consideration.
Hon. A. Petter: Two matters raised by the member -- first the notion of using technology to move to a more real-time transcription. That is one of the innovations that I hope we can pilot in the coming year and perhaps try in a couple of locations, with the technology. It certainly is the way of the future, and I think we should get up to speed on it and see how it can work. I'm hoping we can make some progress in that regard.
On the other, I guess what I would say is that I'm certainly open to listening on the case. If either the member or those in the bar wish to explain the kinds of circumstances and conditions that call for this change in practice, I think it's something that I could certainly take under consideration and would be prepared to do so.
G. Plant: I'll make the Attorney's comments known to those who have a particular interest in this, and the matter may be pursued. I appreciate that offer.
There were two other questions around shorthand reporters. I have been provided with a collection of some cases -- I think it is four cases over the last couple of years -- where there appears to have been a problem presented to an appeal court because of the inadequacy of the recorded transcription in proceedings in the lower court or in the previous matter. The collection of cases has obviously been assembled by those who are concerned about the use of automated transcriptions,
[ Page 15533 ]
and they argue there are accuracy issues that may compromise the delivery of fair and effective justice to litigants in particular cases.
I would not want to say that any system ever used to record what went on in a courtroom was ever completely perfect. I guess the question for the minister is whether he can say if these represent isolated incidents, or if he is even in a position to know whether they do or not.
[1745]
Hon. A. Petter: As the member indicates, any transcription runs the risk of not being perfect in every respect. My understanding is that the evaluation done as the automated transcription services were coming in was based on random samples, and it indicated that the accuracy of the automated system was in fact higher than the accuracy of the shorthand system. As the member says, it's not a matter of comparing one system against perfection but rather making sure that the new system is at least as accurate as its predecessor. The evaluation done earlier on suggested that it was, so there is some confidence that it is at least as accurate as the manual transcription service.
The Chair: Member, with an eye on the clock.
G. Plant: I always do, hon. Chair, and I have particular regard for it right now.
One further question, though, if I may, on the issue of shorthand reporters. As the minister undoubtedly knows, shorthand reporters are traditionally an indispensable tool in the conduct of examinations for discovery in civil litigation. I think I have seen some rumblings somewhere about the possibility of rule changes or regulatory changes that people have looked at, with a view to wondering whether or not there will be some change in the use of official court reporters in the examination for discovery process. Can the minister shed any light on the government's intentions in this regard?
Hon. A. Petter: The rules that would apply would be the Supreme Court rules, I assume. I'm not aware of any changes that are contemplated -- certainly not on the part of the government or elsewhere.
Having the hour pointed out to me, I move that the committee rise, report incredible progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada