1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 4

[ Page 14359 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

F. Gingell: My wife always used to complain that she was always known as Jennifer's mother. I know not whether the parents of Sandra have always been known as Sandra's mother and father, but I do wish to welcome into the House the parents of Sandra Throness, a Liberal researcher. And I ask the House to welcome Al and Maria Knak.

S. Hammell: I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Teather and 14 grade 10 students from William Beagle Junior Secondary School in Surrey. Could the House please make them welcome.

W. Hartley: In the members' gallery today we have some visitors from Great Britain. From Preston, England we have Harry and Marion Lee. They're in B.C. to celebrate the birth of their granddaughter, Savanna Robbins, in Maple Ridge. With them is Les Gardner, who is godfather to our daughter Wallis. Accompanying the group are the two most important people in my life: my wife, Alice, and my daughter Wallis. Please welcome them.

D. Symons: It's my pleasure to introduce today Patricia and Allan Morrison. It was my pleasure to know Allan in a former life, as a colleague in the teaching profession. I welcome him to this House. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Lovick: In the gallery today is a very dear friend of mine, Mr. Stan McRae from Gabriola Island. Stan is one of those rare friends who is also aware of the fact that the best friend is the most critical, and he often gives me some very good advice. He and his partner, Maxine McRae, recently donated a chunk of their property to create the Gabriola Museum on the island. This wonderful, self-effacing man is here in the gallery today. I ask my friends to please make him most welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

Hon. J. Pement presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1995.

Hon. J. Pement: I'm pleased to present this legislation that will reduce the $2 billion-a-year traffic accident problem we experience in British Columbia. Our strategy targets high-risk and bad drivers. Our traffic safety initiatives are speed-monitoring cameras, driving prohibitions, vehicle impoundment and enhanced probationary licensing for new drivers. We will be working and consulting with police detachments, local governments, traffic organizations and concerned citizens over the next six months before implementing these initiatives.

Because unsafe speed kills more than 100 people in British Columbia each year, we propose to introduce speed-monitoring cameras. Because drinking drivers cause one-third of all road fatalities, we propose an automatic 90-day prohibition for anyone caught drinking and driving. To make sure that these drivers stay off the road, we propose to impound the vehicles of anyone caught while prohibited or unlicensed. Finally, we propose tougher conditions for licensing new drivers, including a zero-alcohol limit during their prohibition and longer waiting periods before taking the road test, as well.

These measures should save 100 lives in the first year, thousands of injuries and $350 million a year in health care costs, work loss and insurance claims. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a first time now.

Bill 25 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be read for the first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 24, the second Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This bill amends the following statutes: Court of Appeal Act, Evidence Act, Family Relations Act, Financial Disclosure Act, Labour Relations Code, Liquor Distribution Act, Motor Dealer Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2), Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act, Statute Revision Act, Trustee Act, Wildlife Act and Workers Compensation Act.

Bill 24 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.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd just like to inform the House of our discussions with respect to the next couple of days of business in the House. We've had some discussions with opposition parties. Members know we were considering having tomorrow treated as a Friday. I've talked to the Reform Party and the Liberal Party. I haven't talked to all members of the House, and I apologize for that. We plan tomorrow to call the House, of course, at 10 o'clock as per the standing orders and to have, by agreement, question period at 10 o'clock.

Then the government intends to call Motion 87 standing in the name of the Premier on the order paper for further debate on a very important matter, which I know the Speaker is familiar with.

Oral Questions

COLUMBIA RIVER NEGOTIATIONS WITH BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

G. Campbell: On September 8, 1994, the Premier signed on behalf of all British Columbians a memorandum of negotiators' agreement with Bonneville Power. In October 1994 it was clear that the energy markets were dramatically shifting. On December 31, 1994, the Premier knew that no definitive agreements had been finalized with Bonneville Power. On April 24, 1995, the Minister of Employment and Investment knew that the negotiations were in serious trouble and that the dollars the government had expected would not flow.

[ Page 14360 ]

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Can the Deputy Premier tell the people of B.C. exactly when she was informed by the Minister of Employment and Investment that the deal with Bonneville Power Administration was in trouble?

Hon. E. Cull: I continue to be surprised at the line that the Leader of the Opposition is taking on this one. The position on this side is that a deal is a deal. I wish...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. E. Cull: ...the opposition would get behind the people of British Columbia and be on the side of B.C. when it comes to this issue with Bonneville Power Administration.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. It's very difficult for us to conduct question period in a responsible manner with the interjections that are taking place. I would ask members, in deference to those who are trying to hear questions and answers, to please allow this process to proceed with a minimum amount of interjections.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: It's a little bit much for this government to be claiming to be anti-American in view of the thousands of phone calls they make to their American consultants to tell them how to manage their bungling.

The question to the Deputy Premier is: when did you know that the negotiations with Bonneville Power Administration were in trouble? When you did know that? If you did know it on April 24, why don't you have any contingency plans in place as opposed to high-blown rhetoric? Why don't you, in fact...? Why didn't you have the answers yesterday for how you were going to deal with the loss of $250 million in your budget?

Hon. E. Cull: We on this side of the House are not anti-American; we are pro-British Columbian.

When it comes to dealing with our budget, I can tell the hon. member that we intend to be on target with our budget, as we have been in each and every year of this administration. We will have a surplus, we will maintain our three-year tax freeze, and we will ensure that we manage the finances of this province to stay on track.

M. de Jong: British Columbians have learned that they are out $250 million because the Minister of Employment doesn't know the difference between a negotiators' memorandum of agreement and a legally binding contract.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

M. de Jong: Yesterday the minister said that he intends to challenge Bonneville Power Administration on the basis of his belief that the memorandum is "legally significant." What's really significant here is that we have a government that spent $250 million it doesn't have.

My question to that minister is: how can British Columbians have confidence in his ability to represent their interests in negotiations, when events to date prove quite conclusively that he's out of his depth, he's out of his league and he should be out of his job?

Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting to see the Liberals continually take the Bonneville Power Administration's position over that of the government of British Columbia. I think the people of British Columbia will be very interested in that position. I want members to know that if they had done any research at all, they would know that other utilities around the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere have been dealing with Bonneville Power Administration over the last few months, and they know there is a pattern of unscrupulous business practices by Bonneville Power Administration.

We have a memorandum of agreement with Bonneville Power Administration that obligates them to bargain in good faith to conclude the principles of the agreement that we reached. I challenge members opposite to get onside with the government as private power producers are, as other utilities are, to challenge this American company that's acting in bad faith, and to stand up for British Columbia for once -- to show some leadership, rise above their petty politics and stand on the side of British Columbians and against Bonneville Power Administration.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The minister calls on British Columbians to join with him in a fight against Bonneville. I believe that British Columbians will come together to preserve their interests, but they will not be made to look a fool the way this minister has been made to look a fool. They want to know what remedies are available to them under this memorandum, and they don't trust the minister to tell them the truth on that question.

The minister said that he had a legal opinion. He then changed that to say that he was having a legal opinion prepared for him. My question to the minister is: does he have a legal opinion? Will he commit to releasing that legal opinion today, so that British Columbians will know what their position under that memorandum is before he goes off half-cocked and compromises British Columbia's interests some more.

Hon. G. Clark: At the last meeting of the chief negotiators, Bonneville informed us that they wanted to renege on the deal they made, notwithstanding that they signed their name on the paper, that they came up and had a press conference and praised the agreement. Just a couple of days ago, when they announced they wanted to renege, they said they would write a cheque to us right then for $250 million (Canadian), but that they wanted more for it. If we wanted to play politics with British Columbia, we could have said we'd take the money.

We're not prepared to compromise this legacy of British Columbia for short-term cash. We said to them: "We don't care what you do. We're calling your bluff, and we're

[ Page 14361 ]

playing hardball with you." We're standing up to them as no previous government has, and we believe British Columbians want us to stand up for this legacy for ourselves and our future generations. The Liberals should get onside and support us in fighting this American company.

COLUMBIA RIVER NEGOTIATIONS AND COMMITMENTS TO KOOTENAY REGION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. This government deliberately misled British Columbians about the legality of the Columbia downstream benefits deal. The government deliberately misled British Columbians into believing that we had $250 million in cash from Bonneville, and further, this government committed a billion dollars to projects in the Kootenays on the basis of that agreement. Those commitments were deliberately misleading. They were irresponsible, and indeed they were mischievous as far as the people of the Kootenays were concerned.

Will the minister confirm now that those projects will have to be put on hold until this Columbia deal can be resolved?

Interjections.

Hon. A. Edwards: If I may speak quietly and be heard, I will say again very clearly: this government made a commitment to the people in the basin of the Columbia River. We made a commitment that we mean. We will stand by that commitment.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Will the minister then confirm that even if this government is unable to sell the downstream benefits in the United States, even if it is obliged to take the electricity back into Canada from the United States, it will go ahead and spend, in addition to that, $1 billion on new generating facilities in the Kootenays?

Hon. A. Edwards: We made a good agreement with the people of the Columbia Basin, and we intend to stand by it.

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY BENEFITS AND 1995-96 BUDGET

F. Gingell: Yesterday the Minister of Finance said that I was very selective in what I report before she read excerpts from a letter written by the comptroller general. But it was the minister who was selective. The comptroller general had stated in an earlier letter dated October 26, 1994, that in his opinion "to account for the revenue as cash as received is contrary to the province's accrual accounting policy." Yesterday the auditor general reiterated his opinion on this matter when he said: "It's just wrong." Why did the minister go against the advice of her two most senior advisers and include the $250 million in this year's revenue budget?

Hon. E. Cull: The member continues to be selective. There were three letters that were written on the accounting treatment of this revenue. All three of those letters were provided to the opposition critic and to the third party, along with briefings from our comptroller general. Having looked at all three opinions, the comptroller general then issued a fourth letter outlining the advice that he gave to me, because the opinions were contradictory and could not be resolved. I read the words yesterday and, based on the advice of the comptroller general when we had to make final decisions about the budget, he indicated that the way to treat this was as revenue for 1995-96.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, that letter is dated after the budget was issued. The letters they had from the auditor general and from the comptroller general both said it was inappropriate treatment, so the minister went shopping for another opinion.

The Minister of Finance has created a debt management plan based on surpluses that her government has yet to generate and on $5 billion from a deal that has yet to be finalized. This is what happens when puffery takes over and government is more concerned with propaganda than with accurate reporting and good fiscal management. Why did this minister tell the families in British Columbia that they have a debt management plan when they all knew that it was just smoke and mirrors?

Hon. E. Cull: I take considerable offence at the comments of this member maligning the comptroller general of this province and suggesting that our comptroller general would provide opinions that he did not stand behind.

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

Hon. E. Cull: I think the shame, hon. members, is on that side of the House for suggesting the comptroller general would in fact give an opinion that he did not stand behind.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. members, with the greatest of respect, I think that we've reached a point where we have to decide whether we're going to conduct these questions and answers in a reasonable manner or lose complete parliamentary decorum in the process. I would hope that members would consider that we are dangerously close to losing our ability to show the credibility we all are responsible for.

Hon. E. Cull: The remainder of the member's questions with respect to the debt management plan shows that he simply doesn't understand the plan or estimates. The estimates that are tabled in the House are indeed estimates. All the revenue estimates are the best estimates that the government can make at the time based on the advice of the comptroller general; that's what's included in the estimates.

The debt management plan does not deal with dollars; it deals with the percentage of debt to GDP. That percentage will be maintained whether revenues are higher or lower than anticipated.

[ Page 14362 ]

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Employment and Investment. At 10:30 on April 22 in Fairmont Hot Springs the annual Kootenay-Boundary conference was told -- with the Minister of Energy present, and I believe this minister, in addition to their legal counsel, Lidstone and Young -- that the government was preparing to provide the ten-year notice period for the cancellation of the Kootenay treaty. Could the minister confirm that that took place, and could the minister tell us whether or not that may have a bearing on a contract that was going to be 30 years in endurance?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

The hon. minister.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The bell terminates question period.

The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition rises on a matter.

Motion without Notice

G. Campbell: I ask leave to move the following motion:

whereas Bonneville Power Administration has backed out of the memorandum of negotiations agreement dated July 8, 1994; and

whereas Bonneville's decision to withdraw from negotiations may seriously impact all British Columbians, and most particularly those residents of the Kootenays; therefore

be it resolved this House do establish a special all-party task force, including independent members, whose mandate will be to investigate and develop a strategy that will ensure that British Columbians receive maximum benefit for the Columbia River Treaty legacy.

[2:30]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I hear a no, hon. members.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! The opposition House Leader rises on a matter.

Standing Order 35 Motion

G. Farrell-Collins: I am shocked, and I guess the truth is out now as to who wants to work together for British Columbians and who wants to work for their own re-election.

Hon. Speaker, I ask leave, pursuant to standing order 35, to move adjournment of the House for an emergency debate, notice of which I've given you under practice recommendation No. 8.

As we all know, the Bonneville Power Administration announced that it would not be proceeding with an agreement between the province of British Columbia and the company for the return of downstream benefits. The collapse of the agreement creates a definite matter of urgent public importance to the people of the province. Failure to conclude this agreement leaves the province short by $250 million in this budget year. It also calls into serious question the veracity of the numbers in the budget we've already passed -- not spending, but revenues. Clearly the matter impacts severely not only on the people of the Kootenays but on the entire province.

We and the government have now tried on three separate occasions, under the standing orders, to bring this urgent matter before the House. It must be debated. It's only decent that the debate take place in this House and not be forced into the corridors outside these doors. Hon. Speaker, we believe a clear mandate is provided under standing order 35 for adjournment of the House in order to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing business.

Hon. G. Clark: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I believe you ruled on this very question and, of course, ruled appropriately. I've indicated to all members of the House before question period that we'll be debating this very question of Bonneville Power and trying to seek all-party support for the government's position with respect to dealing with Bonneville Power Administration tomorrow morning after question period at 10 o'clock. It seems to me that that's the appropriate course of action. It's on the order paper. I have indicated that I will be calling it tomorrow.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I do agree that you ruled on this yesterday. I think it's unfortunate that the government hasn't brought forward the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, which could have been called into this chamber this afternoon at 2:30 -- and perhaps still could be if, indeed, the government is genuine in wanting to advance this debate as early as possible.

W. Hurd: I believe this is a matter of urgent and pressing public importance to the people of the province, and it's important to note that the government motion, as I understand it, is not yet on the order paper, and will not be until tomorrow. Obviously it becomes a matter that should be dealt with in the House today. I am appalled, shocked and surprised that the Government House Leader would oppose...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

W. Hurd: ...this motion for purely partisan reasons. I believe this is an important and pressing public matter which should be dealt with in the chamber today while people are here while we don't have a day before a long weekend, and I hope that this motion can go forward.

The Speaker: The Chair will consider the matter that has been presented and bring back a decision shortly.

[ Page 14363 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In

Section A, I call the Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors, and in

Section B, I call the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $322,041 (continued).

A. Warnke: After such a joyous atmosphere here during question period, I'm tempted to ask the question and really put the cat among the pigeons: sometimes a figure of $6 billion to resolve our land claims is tossed around -- is that equivalent to the downstream benefits we were supposed to get from Bonneville? But I'll avoid asking that question -- unless, of course, the minister wants to respond.

Interjections.

A. Warnke: It's interesting what kind of stimulus follows from Aboriginal Affairs, and I hope that all members continue this enthusiasm for the rest of the afternoon, because aboriginal affairs is indeed one of the most exciting issues of our time, so anyone who wants to participate.... I see there are all kinds of people who are ready and willing to get involved in this debate; I should encourage that. I see that the Minister of Social Services can hardly wait to get in here and talk about Aboriginal Affairs -- that's good to see, and I'm sure she'll have her opportunity.

There are a number of issues I want to explore in Aboriginal Affairs, and one concerns the Sechelt land claims. As the minister is fully aware, the Sechelt case is quite different from a number of the other models and cases throughout British Columbia insofar as a form of self-government has been established since 1987 under the federal and provincial acts. Now we see that with the current Treaty Commission process, the Sechelt band has filed the intent to negotiate, and I believe that it's at one of the most advanced stages, if not the most advanced, in negotiations.

There are some aspects of the Sechelt self-government model that British Columbians are certainly very interested in. I would like to explore very briefly with the minister -- because we obviously don't want to belabour the whole of the Aboriginal Affairs estimates -- the present state of the Sechelt case. I invite the minister's descriptive remarks as to the current state of the Sechelt case.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member is aware that the Sechelt negotiation, which is under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission, is, as he says, a very special negotiation. In a way, it's the other half of the job that needs to be accomplished here, given that the work on self-government was accomplished previously.

The state of the negotiation is that this is the first negotiation under the B.C. Treaty Commission process to have entered the AIP stage -- at least, to be ready to enter the AIP stage. The Sechelt nation itself has been declared ready, and the government of British Columbia has been declared ready. It has been reported in the press in the Sechelt area that the government of British Columbia has its mandate to begin negotiations, and that there's some frustration that the federal government does not yet have its mandate to begin negotiations.

A. Warnke: One area I would also like to explore is one I touched on very briefly in another context. In some of the material released on the Sechelt land claim earlier this year, there was a reference to the financial component of the settlement. I made mention yesterday of the $60,000 estimated package value per capita, also taking into account that adjustment which equals $85,400 per capita. I'd like to get clarification on this from the minister. Are these just perhaps figures that are used as sort of an estimate, or is there something concrete in which these figures are presented?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to that question, the Sechelt have been unusual in comparison to other modern treaties in that they have produced a vision. That's a vision they have chosen to make public, for which I commend them. We don't in any way automatically accept their opening position. What they've put out there is an opening position, and it's stated in the context of a vision. It is commendable that they have done so. I don't think it should be construed by the public in any way, shape or form as anything that would describe the result of the negotiations.

I should also point out with regard to the Sechelt negotiation that I'm very, very impressed with the way in which the parties have worked to gain a very positive relationship with the third parties. The third parties -- representatives of various business groups, industries, labour and other interests in the area -- have been exemplary in the way they have entered into this process: genuinely seeking to be part of the solution and recognizing the opportunities that can come from an appropriate settlement.

I'd also just say that when I was at the meetings of the Union of B. C. Municipalities last September, I had appointments to meet with about 40 municipal delegations from around the province.

One of the most delightful experiences I had was when the Sechelt band council showed up with the Sechelt municipal council to come and tell me that they didn't really have a problem that they wanted to discuss with me; they wanted me to know that they are an example of how a first nation and a municipality can work together cohesively and for the good of the area, while at the same time they can respect each other's vision for the future. As I say, I think it was exemplary. It has certainly helped to round out my understanding of what can be accomplished when parties come together.

It's often in the context of hard-nosed negotiations, but there's a very basic feeling of respect for each other and of knowing what accomplishments can come out of it.

[2:45]

A. Warnke: There are some issues that the Sechelt have introduced with regard to the expansion of their land base and future land acquisition. There is an impression that the boundaries have been more or less established in the Sechelt case. That is not the case with many other bands and their intentions to promote their land claims. In the case of the Sechelt, the boundaries are pretty well established -- that's number one -- and therefore there is some question about land acquisition. I would like to have the minister respond to that.

[ Page 14364 ]

Actually, connected with this is the notion of subsurface ownership. I recognize that what the Sechelt have put forward is their opening position, but there is a concern here that if both the federal and provincial governments actually made a deal in 1987 in which they held control over the resources of the area, why is any consideration given to repealing the legislation as it affects Sechelt lands? I would like the minister to provide a response to those two issues.

Hon. J. Cashore: The self-government arrangement has to do with reserve land. They have tabled a position that would add land to that. That's the context of what we're going to be discussing at the table.

With regard to the question around repealing a decision in relation to subsurface rights, that is not a consideration that has come up for discussion, to my knowledge. It's difficult for me to speculate on that.

A. Warnke: Therefore the minister's answer is an interesting one, because he is.... I think the magic word here is "speculating." In other words, this is something to be negotiated down the road, and therefore it is certainly not the position of the British Columbia government to begin with any sort of concession on subsurface ownership. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: We haven't engaged in discussion with the Sechelt yet on this issue, but I think it is informative that one approach which I have referred to in this House with regard to the Nisga'a is where we have.... Recognizing that the settlement lands include reserve lands plus a modest expansion, we would see the subsurface rights going to the first nation in that situation, and we would not see subsurface rights going to the first nation outside their settlement area, which I think, again, is a very limited and confined area.

A. Warnke: Also there is the question of.... I suppose it revolves around the titles here of "certainty" and "finality." Again, what I've heard from a number of people is that -- and there is an impression, with regard to the Sechelt nation.... Wasn't there some sort of certainty and finality? Indeed, one story I heard.... I have not been able to confirm it; perhaps it's an apocryphal story; I haven't really been able to nail down its source.

At the time of the negotiations -- I believe it was Minister Tom Siddon who was leading the federal government side -- there was supposed to have been the impression cast to the Sechelt people that when a treaty is established, as the one in 1987, it is final; it really cannot be renegotiated. My impression is that it was not final in 1987; there were clauses that still allowed the Sechelt to.... At least the way I read it, there was the opportunity there for the Sechelt to reopen the negotiations.

But I would like -- since the concern is there -- for the minister to perhaps give some comment as to this whole question. Was the 1987 treaty final? I guess it really begs the question, too, as we proceed with dealing with the Sechelt: will we reach, or is it the objective to really reach, some sort of sense of finality or certainty? I recognize some of the comments that were made a few days ago by the minister -- that it's very difficult to cast something so strong as a final position that does not allow for some flexibility to readdress some anomalies that might be detected later that are not detected now.

Nonetheless, in the Sechelt case, perhaps the minister could address the question of finality.

Hon. J. Cashore: My understanding is that the 1987 Sechelt agreement was a self-government agreement, and it was the subject of negotiations. I do not believe it is described as a treaty, but maybe that's an academic point. I would want the member to know that we will support the finality of that self-government agreement bridging into the treaty and achieving the finality that a treaty is able to achieve. I hasten to add, as this question of finality and certainty has come up before, that I would expect that the same type of finality and certainty.... It would behoove us -- as all three parties -- to have the same degree of certainty that you would find within contract law.

I use the example of the recent issue that has been in the news, where the federal government on behalf of the Musqueam negotiated arrangements many years ago with regard to residential leased land in the Southwest Marine Drive area. For the first part of that agreement, it was looking as though the aboriginal people had a bad deal, because they were only getting $300 a year for the leases. Then, all of a sudden, this date came when they could change that and, I think -- if the reports are correct -- they could be charging $15,000 a year. That's an incredible....

Interjection.

Hon. J. Cashore: I beg your pardon?

F. Gingell: It's $35,000.

Hon. J. Cashore: Some $35,000, or whatever it is. That makes my point even more strongly: all of a sudden, the benefit of the deal takes a major reversal. I think, in that case, non-aboriginal people would be saying that it is in their interest to be able to renegotiate. So in the interests of certainty and finality in contract law, they would want to be able to have some effect on that in relation to their own interests.

I believe that the commonsense principle here is that if there's a mutuality of interests, then this does happen. Hopefully it would never happen the way it does with hockey players. Nevertheless, from time to time and in certain instances, it would not be something where we would want to restrict or confine ourselves in a way that we wouldn't restrict or confine any other type of contract.

F. Gingell: The member for Delta South is much more reassured this morning with this particular minister in the role of Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. He's a pretty tough negotiator. Yesterday when I stood up and said I just have one question -- I asked one question -- he stood up and adjourned debate. Well, in fact, I had two questions, so I know that with him, a deal is a deal.

My question yesterday concerned the role of the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, and I was referring specifically -- the minister will remember -- to Delta. The response I got from the minister was that the protocol exists, and that's what the arrangement is. So I take it that there's no intention or thought on behalf of the minister to expand the role of the advisory committee to get them closer to the table than they presently are -- and to have more open dialogue so that they are aware of all the issues which will concern their community that are being negotiated, and they'll learn about them early on, rather than later on.

[ Page 14365 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: As I recall, when I answered this question yesterday, I believe we were talking not about the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee but about the treaty advisory committee which is set up in relation to municipal and regional district interests. There is a lower mainland regional advisory committee, and it's chaired by Mayor Mark Sager. I met with Mayor Sager and his committee, which I believe -- I'm almost certain -- included a representative from Delta, and we discussed a number of mutual interests.

I want the hon. member to know that we are listening carefully, with a view to making the process work effectively. But also we do have in place a protocol whereby the municipalities, through their treaty advisory committees, are able to appoint an individual to sit as a member of the provincial team in negotiations. This goes further than any other such example in the history of modern treaty negotiations.

At the same time, it's very important that we hear from people in Delta and elsewhere with regard to how we can be absolutely certain that this is working to ensure that the chief negotiator, when taking a mandate forward, is representing the interests of the people in that area. That's very important.

I should also add that Joanne Monaghan, the president of the UBCM, has taken a very positive leadership role, I think, in organizing an event later this month that will involve B.C. government people and the UBCM people. I believe there'll be a session there with some first nations representation -- again, to work on a provincewide basis as to how to address this very point. The impression that I get from the municipalities is that they are very much on board with regard to seeing that they have an opportunity to ensure that the process works well.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that open and clearly understandable response.

Has the minister included the amount in his budget this year for the purposes of helping to fund the costs of lower levels of government than the provincial government looking after their responsibilities in this area?

[3:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. In this fiscal year we have two pilot projects; they are in Smithers and Prince George. On the basis of that experience we will be ascertaining ways to work in partnership with municipalities to budget for that capacity in the ongoing work beyond this fiscal year.

F. Gingell: While we're on the issue of money, the minister will appreciate that through what I believe was accidental or unintended, aboriginal bands are able to retain money assessed for school property taxes on property on reserve land that is leased to non-aboriginals. I wonder if the minister has any idea of the amount of money involved in that in a year -- either anticipated for '95 or for 1994 -- and whether there's any portion of his framework that they are working within that intends to change that arrangement.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think the hon. member is aware that there are two parallel pieces of legislation, one federal and one provincial. The provincial legislation is, I believe, called the Indian taxation enabling act; it's a process with time lines that enable the vacating of the tax field in order for that to take place, and it also involves service agreements. There have been some notorious instances recently, as a result of the federal government having signed off these agreements in an untimely manner, where certain matters have been left unresolved and have left the municipalities in an awkward position.

I understand that those are getting sorted out. When I met with the federal minister two and a half weeks ago, I raised that issue with him.

With regard to the question about how much in 1995, I need to take that question on notice, because we would have to consult with the Ministry of Finance in order to get that answer. We'll seek to get it back before the end of estimates.

F. Gingell: My third question that I've included in there is the issue of whether you see it as an important part of your negotiating goals or targets to change that arrangement.

Hon. J. Cashore: Thank you for that question. That was the third point that I needed to make on that -- that the really important thing is when we are able to negotiate modern treaties. That should be much less complex; it should be a much smoother process with a great deal more clarity and certainty with regard to how first nations are able to participate in taxation, both in terms of providing services for their own people and in terms of those instances where there are non-aboriginal people on aboriginal land.

W. Hurd: I just have a brief series of questions with respect to the document that the minister was gracious enough to provide to the opposition -- "Crown Land Activities and Aboriginal Rights Policy Framework" -- and that was forwarded to my office. I thank the minister for that. I have just a couple of questions with respect to the test of consultation which is required before an activity on Crown land can proceed. There is one passage here that I was particularly hoping to get some elaboration from the minister on. It relates to

section 7.2.4, where it says:

"Where the province has made repeated unsuccessful attempts to engage in consultation with first nations, legal advice should be sought from the Ministry of Attorney General. Non-participation itself does not give the province the legal justification to infringe an aboriginal right, but may limit legal remedies available to first nations."

I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what type of legal advice would be sought from the Ministry of Attorney General, and if he could possibly explain what limitation there might be on legal remedies available to first nations. What would they be sacrificing in the event that the province has been unsuccessful in efforts to engage in consultation?

Hon. J. Cashore: I may have not heard the entire question, so the hon. member may ask more aspects of it later.

If we were to be in a situation where we needed to consult with the Attorney General, it would be to find out what action we could take that would be within their understanding of the legal requirements. I would point out, though, that there was a case -- I guess it's a couple of years back now -- known as the Takla case.

It's my recollection that in that instance the judge found that the government had done due diligence in seeking to consult, in making contact and in taking the appropriate steps; however, there was a time when the court recognized that it was reasonable and appropriate to proceed when the consultation had not really been concluded because of the lack of cooperation on the part of the first nation. So I think that there is.... Within the law we are

[ Page 14366 ]

getting at least the beginning of a body of law that supports the point that I made a few days ago that it's imperative, I think, for line ministries to be setting time lines in these processes.

W. Hurd: The manual clearly states that non-participation by an aboriginal group does not give the province the legal justification to infringe on an aboriginal right. That's what the policy states; but it adds that it may limit the legal remedies available to first nations. What specifically are we dealing with here? Are we talking about a restriction on their rights of litigation to sue the Ministry of Forests or the Ministry of Lands? I'm just looking for some sort of clarification from the minister -- since it does appear in his manual -- on how that non-participation may in fact translate into a reduction in the legal remedies available to them.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'll try to answer with an example. If they haven't responded in a reasonable time frame and in a reasonable way, they would be less likely to succeed in obtaining an injunction. If their plan was to go for an injunction similar to the 1988 injunction in the Sam Green case, they would be less likely to gain an injunction, having been approached through the appropriate procedures by the government in these present circumstances.

W. Hurd: The manual indicates that if conflicting interests cannot be resolved -- obviously that's between the Crown as owner of the land and a first nation -- the Crown may wish, in some circumstances, to attempt to justify the infringement on aboriginal rights. The example cited is in fishing and hunting, where it may be necessary for conservation to infringe on an aboriginal right. But there is a second category where it says it is less clear what range of justifications would be applicable to the issuance of Crown grants and tenures.

Can the minister indicate to the committee whether his ministry is studying this area, to look at justifying an infringement in order to further the issuance of Crown grants and tenures? Since it does appear in the manual and he has indicated that he's not clear what range of justifications would be applicable.... I wonder if any work is being done in that area, given that there's a potential here to see the issuance of Crown grants and tenures held up by the mandate the Crown now has to identify where an aboriginal right exists. I wonder if he could elaborate on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: In a moment I'll give some of the guidelines that are within the aboriginal rights policy. I would also point out that we have the policy from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, which is the policy that we make available to the line ministries. Within the line ministries, they then have to develop a policy to deal with specifics within their sphere of interest and responsibility. There is also an interministry committee of deputies and senior officials that reviews these situations to make sure that the process is working as well as it possibly can.

With regard to Crown grants, I want to read a portion from this policy, taking guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada decision on Sparrow. Among the questions which should be examined in this context are the following: can the infringement created by the proposed forest management activity be said to be necessary for the conservation and management of a natural resource to ensure public safety or to uphold a compelling or substantive public objective? Has the affected aboriginal group been treated in a way that ensures that their rights are taken seriously? Has there been as little infringement as possible proposed in order to achieve the desired result?

W. Hurd: I want to clarify one thing. Under this policy the ministries operate under, it is up to the Crown to identify the infringement on aboriginal right. The ministries are responsible for determining the specific nature of the infringement. Even if there's an absence of consultation with the band, if the band declines to offer anything in the way of concrete examples or information about the infringement, it is still up to the Crown to identify where the infringement occurs.

It's a troubling encumbrance on the Crown, because the minister acknowledges in

section 7.2 that the province is currently faced with a lack of information on aboriginal rights, and few central mechanisms exist for compiling and making this type of information available on a shared basis. In the absence of a coordinated, central database or inventory for obtaining information on specific first nations rights and interests, there's a series of steps that are recommended.

I think the minister is acknowledging that this is a huge additional burden on the Crown during the pre-treaty process, where even in the absence of cooperation the Crown has to go out and identify the notion of infringement within a reasonable time frame. As I look back on my discussion with the minister in an earlier session during this set of estimates, we tried to talk about a reasonable time frame.

Is the minister at all concerned that the mandate the Crown now has -- the requirement that it has to identify the infringement -- can in some cases represent an unacceptably long time frame, just because the Crown now has that obligation before it can possibly proceed with the issuance of a licence or application?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's really important to acknowledge in the context of this member's questions that we also sent him the forest policy, which does contain time frames in the text of the document we sent him. So there are time frames, and it's not really a correct characterization to say there are no time frames in these documents. That is patently not correct.

Also, the fact is, as the member points out, that the onus is on the Crown to do due diligence in ensuring that an aboriginal right is identified, where there is such a right. There is an onus to seek to do that. We have that responsibility. We didn't create the history that laid that responsibility on us, but it's a responsibility that was there.

[3:15]

Secondly, the fact is that in our array of tools to deal with these situations we have the ability to negotiate consultation agreements in the context of interim measures. This means that in that context, we are able to identify ways in which consultation is able to be effective in seeking to get a reasonable turnaround on these agreements.

The hon. member mentions, almost as though it was something we'd brought upon ourselves -- again, we are fulfilling legal requirements here -- the huge encumbrance on the Crown. We have to ask ourselves about the financial encumbrance on the Crown as compared to the financial encumbrance on the Crown if these matters were left to the courts, where we would be paying out enormous amounts on lawyers, legal fees and other procedures that probably wouldn't even come to resolution. We know that the courts

[ Page 14367 ]

have said -- at the end of the day, after they've made their limited findings -- that the parties should negotiate the

definitions around some of these undefined rights.

W. Hurd: It's not just the burden on the Crown. It's the requirement that the licensee -- the applicant -- also has to consult. Can the minister first assure us that...? Where the applicant -- the licensee -- is required to undertake consultation with a first nation with respect to their management plans, is there any way that the applicant can access the ministry with respect to information about its work on identifying an infringement? Is this type of information shared on a regular basis?

Could the minister just take a moment to sort of deal with the time frames here? Where a licence comes forward, or where an applicant files the necessary application for a licence and is required to undertake a consultation with first nations -- assuming that consultation goes reasonably well -- is there then a concern that the ministry might be looking at having to identify an infringement because there hasn't been a lot of consultation between the ministry and the band? Are we seeing a meshing of the initiatives here? Or does one sort of trigger the other?

Is the licensee left with no idea of whether an infringement is actually taking place? Is the minister satisfied, if there is an infringement, that it's identified early enough in the process and that the applicant is aware of that potential infringement? It seems to me that we have a potential here to really see the time lines extended, despite the assurance of the minister that there are limits in this consultation process. That would be my first question.

My second question would relate to his assertion that if there isn't cooperation from the band, it may limit the legal remedies available -- and he has identified the injunction process, which might be more difficult for a band to pursue. Looking at the practicalities of that, is it not true that it usually happens the other way around; that the band will set up some sort of blockade or restriction on the land base, and then it will be up to the applicant to get an injunction? Can the minister cite any examples of where the bands have used the injunction process in the courts with respect to

section 7.2.4? Those would be my two questions, hon. Chair.

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe I gave an example a few moments ago with the Takla case. I don't have the details of that case with me, but I believe that is an example that satisfies that question.

With regard to the question about limits, the hon. member referred to the fact that I had indicated that it would reduce the ability of a band to succeed in an injunction. It would also reduce the ability of the band to seek damages. It would reduce the ability of the band to have permits, licences or tenures set aside. So there's no question about that.

With regard to the hon. member having asked this question twice today and having asked it two or three days ago: yes, there are time limits; yes, there needs to be time limits; yes, time limits are stated in much of the policy; and yes, there needs to be continuing work in setting more time limits in some circumstances. In the forestry policy document, a copy of which the member has, in the implementation guidelines -- "Stage 1. Determining Whether There May Be Aboriginal Rights In the Proposed Forest Management Area" -- it says: "Approximately 20 days after notification." That's on page 4.

There is another one here at stage 2, "Determining Whether Infringement of an Aboriginal Right May Occur": "Approximately 70 days after notification. . . ." And at stage 3, Where Infringement of an Aboriginal Right Is Likely," it says: "Approximately 90 days after notification. . . ." So there are time lines there, and yes, there's certainly a need for that in order to be able to expedite these.

I also want to say that I feel it behooves us to recognize in the context of this debate, as I pointed out yesterday, that when I was a Minister of Environment, long before the Delgamuukw case was a consideration in policy, one of the most frequent complaints in the lands branch was the backlog of referrals because of consultation processes that were required.

This was endemic -- I don't know if endemic is the right word, but I'm going to use it -- in the administration prior to us becoming government, and it continues to be a concern: the number of referrals that require consultation with various entities, including municipalities and other interests. Consultation is not a new thing, but it is true under Delgamuukw, and another level of consultation is required. I don't intend to indicate that there aren't problems associated with it; there are.

But I don't think we should necessarily accept the implication that in every instance where there's a delay, it's caused by the aboriginal situation.

W. Hurd: Just two final questions, then, and maybe I missed it on the minister's remarks. Can he confirm whether there are specific examples of the legal remedies available to first nations being reduced by a court decision as a result of an unwillingness to cooperate or a lack of action in cooperation? That would be my first question. My second would be: are the time limits that he identified for dealing with Crown land applications and forestry licences enforceable in court? When an applicant might be convinced that the time limits have been breached and an unreasonable delay in accessing the Crown tenure or the licence has clearly occurred, are these time frames subject to court

interpretation? Would a legal right be available to the applicant who seeks to use Crown land for any purpose?

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't believe that there are specific examples with regard to remedies being reduced. I don't think we've been in a situation where that has been the case. We've been out there consulting and enabling the process to move along as a result of the consultation. I don't think that has actually come about, except in an instance such as the Takla case.

The hon. member is asking if time limits are enforced. In that instance, even where there weren't time limits, the court found that the band had had a more than reasonable opportunity to respond and hadn't done so; therefore the court moved that industrial activity should proceed. Even where there wasn't a time line, the court ruled on behalf of the development. The court was able to say that there was a reasonable opportunity for consultation on the part of the band, and that hadn't happened. We will get a copy of the Takla decision for the hon. member.

W. Hurd: I have just one final question. Could the minister tell us with respect to that decision whether the action was brought by the Crown or by the applicant who was seeking to access a licence that had been granted by the Crown?

[ Page 14368 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: We are not certain with regard to the answer to that right now, so we'll get that answer for the hon. member. I said before that that is a case that I'm recalling from memory, and it was quite some time ago. I do believe that the case does apply very directly to the issues that are being discussed, and we will get that for the hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: To pick up on the issue of consultation, it seems to me that the process has bogged down. In fact, it has dramatically impacted British Columbians across the province. The minister keeps referring to the limitations on a band's ability to take action in the face of an activity initiated by the Crown.

It seems to me that the problem with consultation is, first of all, that the bands don't have the staffing capacity to deal with the deluge of consultation application requests that are being referred from various ministries -- from Forests; from Environment, Lands and Parks; from Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They simply don't have enough people there to deal with all of these applications coming forward.

Staff in those ministries don't have any confidence that they are permitted to move forward if they don't have a response from a band. In my part of the world and around the province, we see people who are kept waiting on something as simple as an application for an agricultural lease on a relatively small piece of agricultural land. They may be kept waiting a year and a half or two years or longer, and the answer when they go to the ministry is always the same: "We haven't had a response from the band yet." The band has absolutely no interest in responding; there is nothing in it for the band to respond.

The applications simply get shoved farther and farther down the stack of unresolved issues in the band office. It's a very genuine problem.

First of all, the ministries have to be empowered by the government to take action and understand that they're going to be supported in that action when there's no response from the bands. Could the minister respond? Surely he must be aware of the problems that surround this particular issue.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want the hon. member to know that I agree with what he's saying. We're into a whole process here, in that we are seeking to fulfil legal obligations. We're doing so, given the fact that we're all aware of the fiscal restraints we need to operate under in government today.

I know the hon. member knows, when talking about capacity-building -- whether it's the capacity of government or first nations, just to use an example -- that it was very difficult for the government he was a member of to find the capacity to enable adequate monitoring and enforcement through the conservation officer service. Yet I'm sure the members of the Social Credit cabinet as well as our cabinet would have said: "Yes, would that we could have the capacity we need to do those jobs adequately."

When it comes to the capacity that the hon. member is referring to among the first nations themselves and indeed among third parties and government, however, we are involved in capacity-building. We're involved in programs for joint training and access to government. We're involved in seeking to find ways to build the network of communication so that these parties can be interdependent in their way of accessing information and accessing one another.

We realize that it takes time to get it up and running, and we also realize that all parties are working under the constraints of the resources they have available to them. In some instances, we have to be identifying those areas where we really do need to improve the availability of resources to be able to deal with the situations.

[3:30]

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

We also need to recognize that the policy we have put in place is not the policy that creates the problem. It's the policy that is resolving the problem, and it is seeking to do so in a very new situation. The policy has two aspects to it, for instance, and the first aspect is to identify that which does not require consultation. That's a very important part of the policy, because prior to that being in place, it wasn't entirely clear to the staff of line ministries when they should and should not consult.

This has removed a whole stack of possible involvements off the desks of public servants simply by having a policy now that says where it does not require consultation. It's like coming home from work one day and seeing 75 phone messages on your desk, and being able to brush them off into the wastepaper basket -- because it's clear in this policy that those issues do not have to be consulted on.

That means there is a better opportunity now to focus on issues that do require consultation. Among those that do require consultation, it is my advice -- and I have said this to staff within our ministry and other ministries -- that even there you have to separate those that have the most need for a thorough process and those that need to be moved along very quickly. That kind of direction has to come from my level so that we address these issues where it is perceived that the aboriginal people are the cause of referrals being held up.

Sometimes that is the case, but as I said a moment ago, that's not always the case. Sometimes it is the case that it's a referral that may have to do with some other aspect of governance altogether.

The fact is that in going this second route in some of those items where there does need to be consultation, we do have to consult with the advisers in the Attorney General's ministry to get their advice on what action we should take in certain circumstances.

As I said before in responding to questions from the previous speaker, there is policy, and time lines do exist within policy. I think we've moved very rapidly to be getting these processes in place and making them effective. That is not to deny in any way, shape or form the validity and the value of the point the hon. member is making, because he is making this point not only on the basis of his own experience, but also on the basis of his knowledge of the region he represents. We do need to hear about those issues that need to be addressed.

J. Weisgerber: To follow from where the minister has taken us is to.... Indeed, in many regions of the province, the economy -- the activity of the region -- is genuinely threatened by the slowdown in approval processes. In the gas and oil industry, it's seasonal; in the Peace, in the northern parts of the province, often there are very narrow windows for an activity to take place, whether it be logging, gas and oil

[ Page 14369 ]

extraction, or whatever, and those need to be.... The consultations, if they indeed take months, sometimes eliminate an opportunity entirely.

Again, there is very little opportunity -- very little reason, that I can see -- for the bands to respond, given all the other things that are going on with the tribal council, the band office and the demands that are made on very limited resources within the band government structure. There is very little motivation for them to deal with these referrals. Unfortunately, regional managers and approval agencies simply will not act until they get a response; either they advise people inquiring that they haven't had a response, or they refer the people making the inquiry directly to the band office.

I believe that at the very least, upon identifying those things which don't require a referral, there should be time lines that are sensitive to everybody's needs -- suggesting that if you don't get a response back, it should be deemed to be an indication that there is a lack of concern. I think we have to assume that if we send a request for comment and there is no comment, then it must be interpreted that there is, in fact, no concern. Failing that, I think there should be an obligation on the band to send a note, saying: "We're looking at this matter; we have concerns. It is just going to take us a bit more time, etc."

The other concern I have along these lines is that in most line ministry offices, the requirement to consult is considered to be a requirement to get consent. It's not simply a requirement to ask the band or tribal council if they have an objection; it essentially says: "Until you, the proponent, can get consent from the band, we're not going to give you permission, we're not going to mediate and we're not going to take a position." That is fundamentally, basically wrong. The government should hear from first nations; they should hear their concerns, examine them and then have the courage to go forward and make a decision without requiring consent.

I wonder if the minister would perhaps comment on that.

Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member is absolutely right. I think the member is aware from his experience as the former Minister of Native Affairs that the circumstances have changed a lot in the last few years, given certain court decisions.

I think the hon. member would also know from his time that the government had real difficulties with capacity at that time also. Where he is referring to officials who equate consultation with the requirement for consent -- and therefore don't move unless there is consent -- I want to know about that; I want him to send me specifics about that. We want to be able to address that. First of all, we want to be able to address it through training programs we are developing and carrying out among line ministries. Those programs go beyond Victoria and into the field.

We need to be getting specific examples of where the turnaround time is causing an unreasonable delay and where that is clearly tied to an aboriginal issue. We need the opportunity to hear about those specifically, because we very seriously do want to improve our policy in this, and we can only do that by making use of such cases in point.

The basic point that I hear the member making is that where.... First of all, I'm agreeing with his point about capacity. We need to improve our capacity by doing a kind of a triage, if you will, with regard to those cases that don't need consultation and can therefore be moved off the desk, those ones that need to have extensive consultations and those ones that don't need as much.

Also, we need to recognize that where the policy is not being carried out properly, that needs to be addressed; we need to identify where that's not happening. And we do need to look at issues of capacity.

Thirdly, we need to recognize that there are those instances that need a lot of attention. The interim measures policy is a means of addressing those issues in a way that brings people together in a relationship where they can deal in a consultative way on those issues where there is, I repeat, no moratorium and no veto, but where there is a serious need for consultation and where that can be facilitated through that type of an interim measure.

Lastly, it is true that in some instances we do have to -- as I said before -- consult with the Attorney General with regard to further action to take. That's not in many instances, but it is in some.

L. Hanson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Hanson: In the gallery at this moment we have 19 students from an independent school in my constituency -- the Vernon Christian School. They're accompanied by Doreen Fairweather, who is their teacher; Judy and Cliff Welfing; Joyce and Ralph Leyenhorst; and Curtis Raap. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

J. Weisgerber: I'm encouraged to hear that the minister and the government appear to have recognized the problems that have developed in this area of consultation. I certainly will take the minister up on the offer, because I do hear regularly from constituents who have run into what they believe to be unreasonable delays and instructions, essentially, from ministry staff to go out and get consent from the band. "Don't bother me anymore until you've got this consent," is essentially the way it comes down. That leads to a whole set of other circumstances which perhaps we can pursue in a minute.

I wonder if, beyond the invitation -- which I accept is a genuine one to provide information -- the ministry has any plans to send out clarification, either directly or by way of line ministries. It's very clear to me, on the basis of recent conversations with senior staff in line ministries, that they don't understand what their options are, what kinds of decisions they can make. Understandably, they too delay in making decisions. I think it's really important that that kind of information go out.

I'm also looking at some information I received from the ministry in January. I've received a copy of something called the "Crown Land Activities and Aboriginal Rights Policy Framework," which is interesting, but it provides sections dealing with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Another one is entitled "Guidelines for Pre-treaty Consultations with First Nations"; a third one -- Ministry of Forests -- is the Delgamuukw 2: implementation policy; a fourth is Transportation and Highways, "Consulting First Nations: A New Relationship"; the Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources one is on consulting with first nations about mineral resources and

[ Page 14370 ]

energy activities; and the one from Agriculture is "Guidelines for Pre-treaty Consultations with First Nations." Looking through them, it appears that they were drafted by six different authors, and I expect that's probably the case. The difficulty that I'm leading up to is that an individual who is active in using Crown resources and lands probably would, in the course of their normal business activities -- a logger, a small rancher, someone who perhaps builds roads in the gas and oil fields -- wind up dealing with all of these ministries over the period of a month.

It's incredibly confusing for them to go from ministry to ministry and find significantly and substantially different sets of guidelines and rules for dealing with similar issues. I think that, again, I'll wait to hear whether the government has, through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, plans for more continuity in the way that ministry officials deal with the questions of consultation.

[3:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: It's absolutely essential that we achieve continuity. Again, I'm not saying this as a criticism of what the member or any other member has said, but it is awfully difficult to gain the benefit from hypothetical situations, or from hearing sort of general concerns, compared to what we can gain from having actual specific situations to analyze and identify clearly how we can learn from that specific situation in order to improve the process.

What the hon. member says about the different authors.... The fact is that each of these different operational guidelines for the various ministries is authored within that ministry, based on the framework of guidelines that come from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. So the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has the overall policy. Each ministry has a responsibility for operational guidelines.

With regard to his point about clarification, that is the purpose of those guidelines. As I said before, we also are out there in the field with training, so that the people who are involved in delivering this policy are receiving training, where we can deal with some of the issues when there's misunderstanding with regard to what the task actually is.

With regard to the point the hon. member is making about third parties, that is a point we're very much involved in. We are working with third parties. We are hearing from third parties with regard to the kinds of information that would be helpful to them. We are preparing information documents to make available to them to help them access this policy in a way that they are able to understand it. And I believe, through the various consultation and advisory processes that we have set up with third parties, that that work is ongoing.

But again, we do need to hear about the specific situations which we seek to address, and I do appreciate having those specific kinds of examples made available to us.

I think, though, that we need to recognize that the consultation which is going on is there in order to provide for the situation where ultimately there'll be more certainty in the regions -- and therefore more productive economies. That's what this is about. I think that, again, we're dealing in an era of a long time, of many generations when issues have not been dealt with. We are seeking to deal with these issues. We're seeking to do so not for ideological reasons but because of enlightened self-interest.

If we don't deal with them in this day and generation and if we don't deal with them effectively, it's going to leave a major problem for future generations. And if we don't deal with these issues effectively now, we are going to be back into the very costly processes of having to leave it to the lawyers, leave it to the courts, and, as every member of this House knows, when that happens the results really are not satisfactory for anybody.

I don't think that at the end of the day we're out for finding winners or losers; I think we're out for finding policies that will help us to get on and achieve that certainty and interdependence.

J. Weisgerber: I don't raise the question of winners and losers. I just raise the question of people wanting to get on with their lives. I think consultation has a role. We should give an opportunity to first nations and bands to advise when an activity is going to impact on wildlife, fishing opportunities or traditional or treaty rights, whatever they may be. I've no argument with that.

The minister asks for specifics. It's often difficult, as you might know, for someone dealing with various agencies and band councils to come forward, identify themselves and become the lightning rod for the kinds of things that happen in government as a result of specific complaints.

I can tell you, for example, that I was approached by a large number of individual owner-operators, small and medium-size contractors, who were deeply concerned with activities in the Peace region this year around consultation. The agencies were saying to people wanting permits for building roads to gas and oil leases, etc.... When the folks arrived at the band office, they were told that there were certain conditions in order to get the approval. They often involved the employment of specific individuals from the band or the employment of equipment owned by the band.

It was very simple and very straightforward: "These folks have to be employed in your company, or your referral will go to the bottom of the pile. If indeed you are able to find your way to cooperate with us, then your referral will come to the top and be approved, and things will move forward."

Those folks were working as subcontractors to major oil companies. They were quite severely reprimanded by the companies they worked for, for raising that issue in a public way. They were advised that indeed the oil companies were prepared and understood that the way to get things done was to go along with those kinds of deals.

The effect of that was for contractors, constituents of mine, in some cases to have to lay off non-treaty aboriginal people who were already working for them in significant numbers, to make room for other individuals in their company. I could tell you the names of the people; I don't think it serves any great purpose.

It seems to me, though, from my experience in that case, that it's a practice -- at least in that part of the world, when related to gas and oil activity particularly -- that's quite common and quite widespread. I wound up calling the majority of major oil companies that work in and own properties in the region. I was advised that this routinely was the practice -- the accepted practice -- in the industry.

That was publicized. There were reports of that in the local Dawson Creek and Fort St. John papers for a number of weeks. I would be surprised if indeed the agencies of government didn't pass along that kind of information.

It's those kinds of concerns that I think, again, this question of consent versus consultation leads to. Perhaps the more exuberant use of that process then might be desirable.

[ Page 14371 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: The first part of the answer has to be based on policy. The second part has to deal with the situation that the hon. member outlines.

Based on policy, there is only a requirement for consultation -- nothing beyond that. There's no basis whatsoever in any government policy that would justify anyone from any party -- any individual representing any interest -- in stating that there's a hiring quota or requirement with regard to any relationship to the consultation process or, in relation to consent, with regard to receiving the necessary approvals to proceed. But I think the hon. member is also suggesting that there might actually be some consequences that none of us would have any control over if this were not the case.

I think that what all of us want to see are fair and equitable hiring practices anywhere in the province, no matter what the circumstances are, so that the people living in an area have a fair shot at getting jobs. I think we all stand up for that and none of us disagrees with that.

But I want to assure the hon. member that government officials are not complicit in any type of an alleged incident and -- notwithstanding the comment the hon. member made at the beginning of his remarks about there being some people who are reluctant to be able to make their situation known -- I think I have to counter by saying that if inappropriate activities are going on, they have to be dealt with.

They have to be dealt with in some way that we can deal with the specifics of the situation; again, I really have no basis for having any type of a framework of understanding as to whether this is real, or if it is real, whether it's only in a couple of very isolated instances. We simply don't have the information to be able to say that that's happening. The government is fulfilling its policy with regard to consultation. If this is happening, we have to find ways to be able to address it.

Now maybe the member can come and sit down with me in my office and talk to me about it, and maybe we can at least get some handles on what he's talking about here so we can try to address it. Obviously, he said that there are problems with giving the specifics about it; but it's awfully difficult to deal with something when there is a lack of those specifics that we need in order to be able to go to the nub of the problem.

If there is a problem, we need to understand it, and I would invite my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to come and join us, and we can sit down. I don't think it's a political issue. I think that it's an issue that.... We want to find out if there is any reality there and, if there is, to address it. I will reiterate: we expect fair hiring practices in every instance throughout the province. All of British Columbia should have fair access to jobs when they become available in a region.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to thank the member for allowing me to get into this debate. I wanted to second some of the concerns. I have been just today dealing with some of these matters in respect to forestry referrals. In interviews with press today, I said that I had taken many steps to follow these through to substantiate them -- where they can be and where they seem to be sort of gone underground -- and see how you deal with them fairly.

I'm wondering if the minister has his ministry instructed to try to facilitate, say, a discussion -- maybe not necessarily about the specifics, but to try to bring together the first nations people, the government agencies who are responsible for the licensing referral procedures for permits and so on, and the contractors to talk about the notion of what is fair and what isn't fair in this case.

It's my feeling -- and what I counsel people to do; I don't know if your officials do that -- that we should be trying wherever we can to look at where there are new jobs; that we make those available on an incremental basis to restore imbalances of the past, unfairnesses of the past; or that we use attrition where it's possible, and if not, try to come to some understanding of how we can get communities where there is 80 percent unemployment up to something like the national or regional average, so that's seen as fairness.

I know that there are problems, that some people see any concessions or any kind of affirmative action as a pre-treaty provision. But I'd be interested to know if your ministry does actually encourage people to sit down in a non-threatening environment -- not the guy who might lose his job and the person who might pick up the job, but to try to get beyond that.... I know that your ministry's taxed in all these efforts, and this is all new to us. But I was wondering if you would take that approach, because I think the questions are legitimate.

I deal with them, I follow up on them, and I find that in some cases, you can really fix the problem. For example, where there is somebody with an excavator who's been laid off, and the company has maybe bankrolled a band to start up a company with an excavator, the question is: why not -- if there's a willing seller -- assist the first nations in getting involved, where you're not displacing the machine and some of the employees who are working? It's not just the contractor; it's the employees of the contractor.

You can have a willing seller if they're a contractor, but it's the employees -- and they're local people -- who often take it in the neck.

Hon. J. Cashore: In the context of the work of our aboriginal relations division of the ministry, that is exactly what is constantly being done in many instances throughout the province: addressing issues where we need to recognize that a difficulty has emerged in relationships between non-aboriginal and aboriginal people, usually in the context of dealing with a circumstance like this case in point. Yes, we do sit down together; we seek ways to promote understanding. Often that's in the context of the various levels of interim measures that I read into the record yesterday.

Again, as I was saying about specifics before, the way the Minister of Agriculture has just described is maybe one of the more effective alternatives, I think, where parties don't want to come forward and start talking about a specific instance they experienced, but they can talk in a general way about how this issue can be addressed. Yes, that certainly is one of the ways we are able to talk about this concern.

[4:00]

J. Weisgerber: Let me be very clear: I support and encourage employment opportunities for aboriginal people all over British Columbia, particularly when there are activities in their communities. That's a given. I just don't think that the consultation process should be a lever that sees some person taken out of employment and somebody else put in. I don't think that's very productive. This issue came to me from people who I have known for a long time and who are genuine; I don't believe that 20 of them would get together and make up a story. I am willing, on the basis of the people and their approach, to accept that it's a genuine happening.

[ Page 14372 ]

I've talked with the senior company officials. Some have confirmed that it is, in fact, the practice; others have denied it officially but have, in fact, informally confirmed that it happens. The bands deny that it happens, and the government agencies -- very genuinely and sincerely, I think -- deny any complicity in it.

Let me just finish this, though, because I do believe that beyond the idea of sitting down together and trying to resolve this, if indeed there was a reasonable time frame whereby if you didn't get a response, the activity could proceed, and/or if indeed consultation was seen as listening to the concerns and not requiring consent, then it would diminish substantially the ability of the affected parties to engage in that kind of activity, which is significant use of leverage. I'm not sure that many of us would pass up the opportunity to use that kind of economic leverage if we were in the position of the bands. I believe the problem comes back to one of process.

I've tried to deal with this in an appropriate way as an MLA. I've met with the constituents; we've had a series of meetings; I've contacted the parties involved to try to confirm the practice; there's been publicity surrounding it. I think the next appropriate step is to come and raise it in debate here, assuming that the ministry has been made aware of those concerns by way of clipping services, etc.

Hon. J. Cashore: I want to reiterate: consultation does not require consent. I hear what the hon. member is saying. He is saying that in his area that message needs to be heard loud and clear. That point is well taken; it should be heard loud and clear. That is the message, and if I have to come up there and shout it from a rooftop in order to make the point, I will. But I think that working together, we can get this message through.

C. Tanner: I think that subject has been thoroughly canvassed, and it's time to change. I hope the minister is ready to go in another direction.

Mr. Minister, you mentioned about an hour and a half ago that you were at a municipal meeting in September in Whistler. At that meeting you gave a talk and a slide show of what is happening with land claims. After your presentation, which, incidentally, I quite appreciated, as did other people in the room.... In fact, Mr. Minister, in my view you should be doing more of that all around the province, and at every opportunity. I think it's absolutely essential.

After your presentation, you asked for questions, and you got a question from the mayor of Central Saanich, Mayor Box, and Councillor James. They asked you to assist them in any way you could in facilitating the agreement that was ongoing between the Central Saanich municipal council and one of the local bands. They've made some tentative agreements, but I don't think the agreement is finalized, and I've got a number of questions concerning that.

First, were you or any officials in your ministry able to help them?

Second, while the minister might say that that's not directly related to treaty negotiations, the fact of the matter is that it is the general public's view that it is all part of land claims negotiations, in that it's first nations asserting themselves. It does have some influence on what the minister, his government and this whole House are trying to accomplish in land claims.

Third, the minister also mentioned later on that he had been in Ottawa two and a half weeks ago, and he'd brought up the subject of compensation for the schooling tax raised on bands. Was he able to get any satisfaction from the federal Minister of Indian Affairs on compensation to Central Saanich and other municipalities with the same problem, in assisting them with their lack of taxation -- with regard to the ability of Indians to tax themselves?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the first question -- "Did the government respond to their request for help?" -- the answer is yes. We paid for mediation and we were a participant. I have to say that the provincial government does not have culpability on this issue. But the provincial government, seeking to be a part of the solution, did provide mediation services. That's in relation to question 1.

With regard to question 2, it's more of an observation than a question. When this type of problem arises, it's seen as somehow a product of treaty-making negotiations. I appreciate the comment, because we really do need an opportunity to clarify this with the public. The hon. member asks that question out of years of experience with regard to the emergence of northern treaties and the Yukon treaty. The irony is that the treaty-making process is the way in which these issues that have festered for so many generations will be resolved.

It's in settling modern treaties that we seek to get rid of these silly circumstances where you have to have taxpayer enabling acts, and the anomalies of the federal government and the Department of Indian Affairs and the way their trust arrangement results in occupying and vacating taxation fields. That is a very confusing set of circumstances.

What we are doing through treaties is seeking to remove the confusion, achieve the certainty and have one tax regime for all people that works for all people, where people pay for the services they receive, and where it's done on a fair and equitable basis. Therefore we seek to resolve that through treaties.

With regard to my discussions with Minister Irwin, I have met with him on several occasions. On several of those occasions, I have raised this issue with him with regard to situations in the province where the federal government, either by neglect of following through on its responsibility or as a result of a bureaucratic mistake in some instances, has caused problems for people in British Columbia. I have raised these issues with him and have asked him to deal with them, and I have discussed that specific issue with him.

With regard to whether that has resulted in satisfaction, I think the hon. member perhaps knows that Mayor Box is in Ottawa as we speak, and as far as I know, she is taking these issues up with the minister at the present time.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

C. Tanner: I know I'm pushing my luck a little with the minster, because he's reaching beyond his jurisdiction in some respects, and I also appreciate the fact that Mayor Box is in Ottawa right now. But let's call a spade a spade, Mr. Minister. We know full well that the minister has more clout in Ottawa than any mayor in British Columbia -- and far be it from me to downgrade the mayor -- and consequently, his representations to the federal minister probably bear more fruit.

[ Page 14373 ]

When I started up this second question, I said I was pushing my luck, but did the minister have any indication from the federal minister that he was prepared to find compensation for those municipalities that had suffered more grievously than some others?

Hon. J. Cashore: I appreciate the hon. member's point, and we will continue to take it up with the federal minister. I can report only that he and his staff agreed to look into the matter. I did not get any guarantee of dealing with the shortfall and the compensation, so I continue to raise it with him and will raise it with him again the next time I see him.

C. Tanner: I have one last question for the benefit of the three municipalities in my constituency and the other 150 municipalities in the province. How many of these settlements have been made between municipalities and bands? To the best of my knowledge, it's something in the region of 40. At least, it was a year ago. How many have been settled, and how many are there to be settled?

Hon. J. Cashore: We will get that data for the hon. member.

A. Warnke: I won't go on at length, but what I want to do is to return to a document the member for Surrey-White Rock referred to earlier and seek some elaboration on that with regard to Crown lands. In particular, where I would like to express this once again in terms of a concrete example.

One area of concern I have -- and I've been in touch with the communities there -- is in the Williams Lake and Cariboo regions, regarding the ranching community. The leading issue for the ranching community is the aboriginal land title negotiations, insofar as the ranching community see the whole area in regard to range regions.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Well, the way it's been expressed to me, it's a great threat to them, in that the ranchers there want access, and believe that to a large extent in the past they've had access, to Crown rangeland and private land, and there should therefore be continued access to Crown rangeland. One way to express this is that often when we think of Crown land in urban areas such as Vancouver -- and let's use that as an example as well....

When we think of the Justice Institute suddenly being relocated, the Crown land that is left behind is automatically part of -- or is certainly seen by the aboriginal community as being part of -- the land claims; therefore they should have access to Crown land, and there are negotiations that stem from it. In that particular case, it's interesting that as long as the Crown land was occupied by the Justice Institute, there wasn't a claim over it. But as soon as the Justice Institute is being removed, that land becomes available for negotiation.

Incidentally, not many people know this, but a lot of people are under the impression that in the United States a lot of federal land is somehow in perpetuity under the ownership of the federal government. I can think of similar examples; the island of Alcatraz comes immediately to mind. Once the prison at Alcatraz was relocated, aboriginals in California laid claim to the island of Alcatraz. So there are some similarities in the United States with what is happening in Canada.

In the grazing areas -- or what have been seen by the ranching community as grazing areas -- where they lease or have access to Crown land, it's very similar to Crown land in an urban area being occupied -- except, of course, the environment is a lot different. Sometimes urban people view Crown land one way and feel that in a rural area, Crown land isn't being utilized or occupied, when in fact the ranching community makes a strong argument that it has had access to Crown land for generations. They could lease Crown land. This is land that has been used for grazing, so in that context they should continue to enjoy the use of those lands for the purposes of grazing.

[4:15]

While I'm on that, when I think of the ranching community, it's not only for the purposes of raising cattle. The ranching community can be seen as far more encompassing than that. I would draw members' attention to the fact that in the ranching community there are such things as guest ranches, which would include tourism, back-country recreation, access to wildlife and fishing, and so on, where once again the grasslands of these areas are seen as part of that kind of activity.

At any rate, what I want to briefly pursue with the minister is the state of the ranching community and their concerns about land for the purposes of grazing -- or, for that matter, in a more expansionary view, for guest ranching and tourism and all the rest of it. I know I raised this concern last year, but the concerns still are expressed.

Indeed, when it comes to the British Columbia Guest Ranchers' Association, they've made it clear too -- and maybe the minister might want to respond to this -- that they've been seeking recommendations in terms of establishing sensitive-development zones in the Cariboo-Chilcotin area. As well, they've advocated giving the Ministry of Tourism a legislative mandate to represent tourism resource interests in regional planning and policy development processes.

I'd like to just briefly explore the state of the ranching community in the context of the negotiations, especially in light of the document that was put out earlier this year entitled "Crown Land Activities and Aboriginal Rights Policy Framework." I would like the minister to perhaps respond by following up some of the questions and concerns I expressed last year at about this time. What sort of improvements, as the minister sees them, and what sort of efforts has the ministry taken to alleviate some of these concerns? Because somehow the concerns are still being expressed to me from the ranching community.

Hon. J. Cashore: I really do believe that we have canvassed this question in a variety of ways, with this one difference: the question is focusing on ranching and those who are involved in cattle-grazing, and often that grazing goes onto Crown land which is sometimes interface land with the forest. I want the hon. member to know that the principles of this government that I've read into the record.... I'm tempted to read them into the record again now, but it would be about the tenth or twelfth time during these estimates that I've read these principles into the record, so I'm not going to do it again.

But I don't want to hear the member stand up and say that I refused to answer, because I answered it yesterday, three days ago and four days before that.

[ Page 14374 ]

I do want to say, in all seriousness, that the association which represents the ranchers and cattlemen is a very key and important player on the Treaty Negotiation Advisory Committee, and also in the regional advisory committees as they get up and running. I've had many personal conversations with the individual who heads that organization, and it's absolutely essential that when our negotiators go to the table they represent those people who have those interests that these ranchers and cattlemen are concerned about. There's no question about that.

We have pointed out, for the record, that we have not taken the position of the Liberal opposition, which is that there would be no land on the table against which there are leases and licences. In so doing, we feel that that would not be in keeping with the spirit of the agreement which was reached in setting up the B.C. Treaty Commission, and that indeed it would violate the opportunity to achieve modern treaties. Therefore we have not taken that position. But we do take the position at the table that we will defend the existing uses of that land in a very, very serious and determined way.

As we have said before.... Our statement has been repeated again and again with regard to fair compensation in those very rare instances where that is required. So with regard to grazing, I make it very clear that the people who represent their interests are very much in the loop in terms of making their issues and concerns known to us, known in our mandate process and known in the review of our mandates as they are developed, because those go out before the regional advisory committees to seek their advice.

You know, hon. member, sometimes there's some question: how do we know they are seeking our advice? I just want you know that I met with one group representing one particular sector the other day. When that question came up, I was able to give them a list of ways in which we had accepted their advice. And they were very, very pleased with that. So the fact is that these advisory processes are important. They're working.

A. Warnke: I agree that there are a lot of principles that the minister has expressed in these debates. I paid very close attention to the minister's answers as well as the questions. The questions and the answers usually, unless I missed something, focused entirely on agriculture, agricultural lands, and so on. I appreciate that some of the principles the minister extended really apply to this area as well; but on the other hand, I did not hear anything specifically on grazing. This is the reason I was exploring this with the minister.

At the same time, here's, I think.... I'll try to get really at the nub of the issue here. As the minister has said to many questions, private land is not on the table. Nonetheless, there are those circumstances in which private land could be purchased in some sort of resolution after negotiation -- for which, of course, there would be compensation. I guess the concern still is raised; it certainly was put to me last year and to my former critic the year before. What if the aboriginal people still insist on access to private land?

How does the government make it very clear that it is not on the table -- that's number one -- and that the government will not purchase those kinds of private lands? Otherwise, there is a perception or impression that these are merely hoops and that, despite the statement that private land is not on the table, the government can still nonetheless purchase the land for settlement. All the literature just says the ranchers may be consulted, and nothing more, for a final deal.

I want to reassure the House and certainly the minister that I don't intend here to be fearmongering or anything like that. I just want to make it explicitly clear, I suppose, involving the complications here of the mixture of private land and conceptions of private properties in the negotiated settlement.... Essentially, I'm looking for some sort of clarification and something explicit that can actually reassure those who have been in the grazing and ranching business -- and, I suppose, the ranching business in a general sort of way.

I'm not going to belabour the point, so perhaps I'll put it into the context of this one question: what reassurance is there that ranchers' and grazers' concerns on grazing in designated protected areas, whether it's Crown lands reserved for grazing and for private lands...? What reassurance can the minister offer that these will not be negotiated out?

A. Warnke: In the interests of expediting a few things, I believe there is another aspect with regard to gaming; but I see that my distinguished colleague in this area is with me, and I think he would like to put some questions forward.

The Chair: The member for.... I'm sorry, it's Surrey-Cloverdale. I haven't seen much of the member in this committee. My apologies for struggling with the name.

K. Jones: Sorry that you weren't able to see me so often. I've been in the other House. There have been very interesting debates in the other House as well.

Could the minister give us an outline of what is transpiring in the role of the ministry in relation to aboriginal gaming?

Hon. J. Cashore: Aboriginal gaming comes under the responsibilities of the Minister of Government Services. So what has transpired in the role of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is that we have a very real interest in what happens in this area, and we consult with the minister, and our ministry consults with officials within the Ministry of Government Services.

K. Jones: The minister, I understand, has some staff on the implementation committee or team that is working under the auspices of a chair from Government Services. Could the minister tell us what direction that representation is bringing to those discussions?

Hon. J. Cashore: One person who is on the staff of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is not working for us now and has been seconded over to the Ministry of Government Services to work on this file. The direction ultimately comes from the government.

K. Jones: The minister is saying -- I just want to clarify -- that the direction is coming from the government. You meant from Government Services, did you?

[4:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

[ Page 14375 ]

K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of whether he has had representation from various aboriginal organizations in the areas of gaming or gambling with suggestions as to how they would participate in the expansion of gambling in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, there have been discussions; usually it's been my role to refer them to the minister when they've raised those issues with me. As the hon. member can appreciate, as you go out and about the province, meeting in different contexts, people come up to you and talk to you about issues that are on their minds. I am quite happy to discuss it with them, but I advise them that ultimately it's in the area of the Minister of Government Services, and I advise them to take their concern in that direction.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us some indication of the kind of direction that these requests are going in? What types of thinking are the aboriginal people bringing to the minister with regard to aboriginal gaming, or gaming of any form?

Hon. J. Cashore: A full spectrum of interests, all the way from bingo to huge casinos, saying sometimes that they want to get into it; and indeed I'd add to that spectrum first nations people who come and talk to me and say that they don't want any gambling at all -- they think it is not suitable for their area. As wide a spectrum of interests as you could possibly imagine comes to me from various people who come and talk to me, and I refer those people to the Minister of Government Services very happily.

K. Jones: As a man of the cloth, I thought you would probably be very interested in their concerns with regard to gambling. Certainly your church is known for its position in regard to opposition to gambling in this province. Perhaps the minister would be able to tell us if there is a strong percentage in favour of gambling by aboriginal peoples, or whether there is a strong movement against gambling by aboriginal peoples.

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't have the information to be able to answer that question with any accuracy based on the contacts that I've had, because I haven't done any scientific analysis on this. Those questions would have to fall within the purview of the Minister of Government Services. It's my sense -- this is just an opinion; it's not based on any type of study or anything -- that a significant number of first nations people feel that they don't have access to opportunities in the areas of different kinds of gaming, and because they are very interested in enhancing economic development in their areas, they would like to see that opportunity.

It's very difficult to answer the question in terms of how predominant the positions on one side or the other are, because you'll find a variety of opinions within aboriginal communities. A good example is the Kamloops band. The Kamloops band had a referendum. On first count, the referendum to allow gambling passed, I believe, by one vote. Then there was a recount, and on the recount it lost by one vote. That's a good illustration of just how much of a struggle this is for first nations themselves in trying to come to terms with this issue.

One of the benefits of treaties is that we try to move to a day when first nations are not always having to look to gambling or tobacco or storing toxic waste as a means of economic development, but are able to come more into being economically independent by having a greater variety of economic opportunities through building new relationships and partnerships.

K. Jones: I'm glad to see the caring and interest and sensitivity that the minister has toward this issue. It's very important, and it could be very devastating to the aboriginal people if it's not dealt with in the proper manner. Does the minister feel that this provides a form of economic development, as some aboriginal people have been saying?

Hon. J. Cashore: There are some examples from south of the border. I have heard of people going to one place -- I forget where it is in the States -- and they're talking about the members of a particular band receiving a great deal of money out of a casino. I haven't researched this, but I've heard it said that it's the largest casino in the United States. I don't know if that's true or not.

The fact is that on anything like this, you have to weigh the benefits and the costs. One of the things we know for sure -- and we've heard this coming out of Las Vegas -- is that there is a saturation point with regard to this being a rather silly way of trying to have any kind of economic development. That's my own personal feeling about it. But even for those who see it as some kind of gravy train -- and I'm not saying that in reference to first nations; I'm saying that in reference to everybody -- the facts don't add up; that just doesn't make sense. There is a saturation point.

As an economic activity, yes, there are some who could point to where there have been some economic benefits in the way of jobs, in the way of being able to provide for certain opportunities in a carefully managed environment, and where it has produced some economic opportunity in some circumstances. Now, others would argue that it really is not a net benefit, because of social costs; that's an interesting debate in itself. But those are the parameters of the debate. To what extent is it a pure economic opportunity, and to what extent are there social costs that negate any economic benefit?

My own feeling is that we should be putting our eggs in a basket of productive, better job creation in other economic development activities, and therefore in some of the things that we see happening in the business community where there are real efforts being made on the part of first nations and non-first nations people to build business partnerships -- sometimes in anticipation of the post-treaty environment, but some actually happening prior to treaties getting going. In my view that's the better basket to put the eggs into.

K. Jones: Do you believe that there should be an aboriginal gaming commission?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no.

K. Jones: In the area of trying to get economic development, what representations have you had from, say, the Osoyoos band? I believe they've made a fairly vocal decision with regard to gaming. Have you had a request to be onside with their proposal?

[ Page 14376 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I met with the Osoyoos band council. I'm trying to recall; I think it was about a year ago. Perhaps it was last June; I can't say for sure. They were wanting at that time to have some direct negotiations with the government with regard to their desire to set up a casino on their land. I met with them, listened to them and said that at that time that our government was in the process of seeking to develop a policy in consultation with the First Nations Gaming Committee, and that that was a process that was underway.

I also pointed out to them at that point in time that the Minister of Government Services was not meeting with individual bands with regard to one-offing this process, because that would create a totally unmanageable situation. We needed to get the policy in place first. So that was the message they heard from me and that was the meeting that took place.

Since that time, I'm also aware that there was some talk in the media about the Osoyoos band setting up a casino. I also understand that the head of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, came out and counselled them not to go that route but to seek to do so within the context of the government responsibility to administer gaming. I believe there was something in the news again the other day about the Osoyoos band. I can tell you, hon. member, that I've just shared with you the extent of my knowledge of the Osoyoos band on this situation.

K. Jones: You mentioned the Kamloops band. I understand the Kamloops band actually have an operating bingo operation on their property -- actually, it's on land leased from the city, but they were running the bingo operation. They went for a high-stakes operation, and the government informed them that they could not proceed with that. Do you feel that they were treated properly with regard to that?

Hon. J. Cashore: I really can't say that I have the data to be able to form that kind of judgment. It's my understanding that I believe there was somebody charged coming out of one of those activities, but I may even be incorrect about that. I am really not in a position to judge whether they were treated fairly or not. I would expect, however, that insofar as the government was involved, the situation was handled -- I would assume, and it's certainly my understanding -- appropriately.

K. Jones: Is the minister aware of any gaming proposals in his own riding or in surrounding ridings in the lower mainland that he has immediate knowledge of?

Hon. J. Cashore: This is a very interesting question. In my riding there is one small Indian band -- the Kwayhquitlum band -- and it's on a reserve that you might say is a very small postage stamp of land, down on Colony Farm. They also have land at the north end of Colony Farm which they are seeking to develop for some economic development purposes. It's my understanding that the elected council, which consists of the chief and the councillors.... The name of the chief, which I know very well, just escapes me; it will come back to me in a minute.

It's my understanding that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has suspended the funding of the band because the band council has been challenged by persons who have become members of the band through Bill C-31 and who, I understand, are living down in Tacoma. This is a really good example of the bizarre kinds of circumstances that we can find -- a problem for first nations and for everybody else -- under the anomalies of the federal Indian Act, which we want to get rid of through modern treaties.

But here we have this little band, which is trying to get into some economic development on their land, being stymied by this anomaly, and by these people down in the United States who have been given some credibility in the way in which they have been ascertained, by virtue of becoming registered through Bill C-31 in a process which I think is referred to as the custom process.... They have actually been able to convince the federal government that they should suspend the activities of the duly elected band council.

What I've heard -- and I can only tell you, hon. member, what I've read in the papers -- is that some casino outfit in the States has some relationship with these people down in the States. There was a news story saying they wanted to put a casino into that area, which is absolutely a crock. It's absolute nonsense; it will simply not ever, ever happen, and it won't be allowed to happen. What is really, I think, the more serious concern is the fact that the duly elected band has had its ability to carry on its affairs -- and it's doing a very good job -- curtailed.

[4:45]

K. Jones: It's interesting to hear of this one example that the minister is very familiar with, and the difficulties that are a result of that. Which organization would actually be preventing them from proceeding with this? You said they would be stopped, and that there would be no way that they would be allowed to proceed with a casino in that location. What would be the body that would be able to stop them?

Hon. J. Cashore: Ultimately, the chief of the band council and the band council would stop them. I have every confidence that they are going to be reinstated. This is a horrible injustice. They are adamant that their future is not in gambling, but in economic development that's of a more useful nature. They will have the complete support of the people of Coquitlam, who would be absolutely appalled at any such consideration; they would have my complete support -- which is considerable in the Coquitlam area, when you consider some of the things that have been accomplished there since I've been the MLA.

The fact is, hon. member, I have discussed this.... As a matter of fact, when I met with Minister Irwin two and a half weeks ago, that was the number one topic on the agenda, because this is such an incredible injustice. He is very concerned about the situation, and I have every confidence that he is going to do the right thing and that the duly elected band council will be reinstated.

The other organization that I would refer to is the province of British Columbia. The province of British Columbia won't stand for any such thing going into that area on the doorstep of Coquitlam.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us an idea of how he can convince aboriginal peoples who desire to have gaming operations in their area to turn their thinking to some alternative economic development process that would be satisfying to them, to make them feel that they were getting something that would give them a solid base for the economic development of their community?

[ Page 14377 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: I don't see it so much as my role to convince, because I have a great deal of respect for the ability that the people of first nations have to ascertain what's best for themselves. I don't think that the hon. member was trying to suggest that they don't. But one of the ways in which we seek to encourage first nations to address such issues as improving economic opportunities is through business partnerships such as the Burns Lake Native Development Corp., which is a singular success story in British Columbia, where an aboriginal corporation, having formed a partnership with Weldwood and West Fraser, is now directly employing 400 people, most of them non-aboriginal.

I think one of the ways that first nations are able to access these opportunities is to find out about them, helping us make those types of examples available to them, encouraging the type of thing that former Attorney General Brian Smith has been doing: holding seminars involving people of first nations and business people, so that they can talk about how they can get on with developing partnerships.

Also, I think we have to take a look at the whole issue of self-respect and self-esteem and how we seek to ensure, in the schooling that involves children of first nations and non-first nations, that there is a more appropriate outline of history, so that there can be a growing sense of satisfaction and appreciation with regard to the history of the people of first nations. There are a number of things we can do to try to address these. Again, I think the process we've entered into in the treaty-making context is what that's all about.

K. Jones: Your colleague the Minister of Government Services has taken a fairly strong position against the proposed aboriginal gaming position taken by the First Nations Gaming Committee. Do you feel that that's the right way to go about dealing with the aboriginal arrangements?

Hon. J. Cashore: Governments are elected to govern. When governments do due diligence in seeking a cooperative approach to addressing a policy issue, at some point they have to ascertain whether or not it's time to move on and fulfil the obligation government has to govern. That is what has happened in the context of the decision of the Minister of Government Services.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, if I might.... We have had approximately 20 minutes of discussion on matters that fall, quite frankly, outside of the terms of reference of this ministry, as the minister has pointed out. I appreciate the fact -- as I'm sure all members do -- that the minister, recognizing that aboriginal gaming is conducted by aboriginal people, therefore feels, as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, honour-bound to acknowledge that.

Beyond that, members, I have to advise that according to the estimates book, there is no provision whatsoever for anything to do with gaming, and we are out of order. Now I'm not -- I hasten to point out -- trying to say: "End the discussion at this point." But I do want to caution members of the committee that we are frankly out of order in this discussion, and I think 20 minutes is about enough. If the member has a point he wants to lead to in these ministry estimates, I would encourage him as gently as I can to please do so.

Having said that, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale continues.

K. Jones: I think your point is well taken. I'm trying to walk that line which separates this ministry and the Government Services ministry, recognizing that I have responsibilities to look after the interests in the gaming area on both sides of that line. As critic, my responsibility goes toward trying to address the interests of all the people involved in this issue. Therefore we are trying to look at it from the aboriginal side of it. I did not relate to the Government Services position or side of it; I just wanted to get what the minister felt wi